Raise your hand if you believe in your Deity

[Mastiker]

Sometime in the late fall, unless a federal court intervenes, ninth-graders at the public high school in rural Dover, PA., will witness an unusual scene in biology class. The superintendent of schools, Richard Nilsen, will enter the classroom to read a three-paragraph statement mandated by the local school board as a cautionary preamble to the study of evolution. It reads, in part:

Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is being discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence ... Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view ... As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.

After that one-minute reading, the superintendent will probably depart without any discussion, and a lesson in evolutionary biology will begin.

That kind of scene, brief and benign though it might seem, strikes horror into the hearts of scientists and science teachers across the U.S., not to mention plenty of civil libertarians. Darwin's venerable theory is widely regarded as one of the best supported ideas in science, the only explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, grounded in decades of study and objective evidence But Dover's disclaimer on Darwin would appear to get a passing grade from the man who considers himself America's education President. In a question-and-answer session ... George W. Bush weighed in on the issue. He expressed support for the idea of combining lessons in evolution with a discussion of "intelligent design"-the proposition that some aspects of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to natural selection. It is a subtler way of finding God's fingerprints in nature than traditional creationism. "Both sides ought to be properly taught," said the President, who appeared to choose his words with care, "so people can understand what the debate is about ... I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."

On its surface, the President's position seems supremely fair-minded: What could possibly be wrong with presenting more than one point of view on a topic that divides so many Americans? But to biologists, it smacks of faith-based science. And that is provocative not only because it rekindles a turf battle that goes all the way back to the Middle Ages but also because it comes at a time when U.S. science is perceived as being under fresh assault politically and competitively. Just last week, developments ranging from flaws in the science program to South Korea's rapid advances in the field of cloning were cited as examples that the U.S. is losing it's edge. Bush's comments on intelligent design were the No. 1 topic for bloggers for days afterward. "It sends a signal to other countries because they're rushing to gain scientific and technological leadership while we're getting distracted with a pseudoscience issue," warned Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the 55,000-member National Science Teachers Association in Arlington, Va. "If I were China, I'd be happy."

Welll... I generally don't know where to go from here. "God Sucks" usually only works as a fallback when people, ya know, are ignorant past belief...

[Invictus]

I don't see anything wrong with presenting both sides of the debate. Darwin's theory does have some gaps yet to be adequately accounted for, and intelligent design is a theory supported by many credible individuals in the scientific fields.

[Mastiker]

The problem with presenting both sides of the debate, is that it shows a weakness in our science, or in the other aspect, our faith. We need to be firm on either "is it natural selection?" or "is it from a divine entity?" The other major problem is that people as a whole cannot choose one. The nation (U.S.A.) is divided on whether it believes in creationism, or Darwin's theory.

[stillbornsinger]

I will not be raising my hand on this one, and I have no Deity...

Welll... I generally don't know where to go from here. "God Sucks" usually only works as a fallback when people, ya know, are ignorant past belief...

Is that the response you are expecting from people?

Alright... I'll try and tackle this topic here...

Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is being discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence ...

This statement seems to me as being quite negative towards Darwinism, with the purpose of setting children up to doubt the theory more than just question it.

However,

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view ... As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.

Seems to me that this portion of the statement is made with the intent of swaying the children to focus more on the possibility of ID. The blurb that the supervisor will be reading in its entirety seems biased towards ID in the way it is written. If there is to be such a disclaimer, then perhaps it should be reworded.

Now on the subject of ID itself, it differs from Darwinism in that Darwin's theory is an idea that was developed based on Darwin's observations. The theory was created after looking at all the evidence and saying..."hrmm... this is probably how things work on planet earth"

Intelligent design however is an assumed answer with supporters looking for evidence to support it. As is all religion in general.

For this reason I do not believe intelligent design or religion for that matter have any place in the school system, I would suggest a disclaimer such as this if enough Americans really believe one is necissary.

____________________________

Darwins theory is only a theory and not proven fact, however it has been the accepted explanation for the majority of the scientific community for hundreds of years as the best explanation for the development of life on earth. However, many people also believe in the possibility of Intelligent design, which is the theory that there is an intelligent design governed by a higher power. Darwin's theory will be taught in biology class, but we would like to encourage all of you to go out and talk to your parents, research into the subject, examine both explanations objectively and arrive at your own conclusion.

(or something like that)


I'll conclude my post by saying that there should be a seperation of church and state, for many good reasons which we can get into if you would like but in perhaps another thread. Also every one deserves the right to believe in whatever they think is right, science, God, a giant turtle. But it is the schools job to inform students of what information there is out there, and the church's and parents responsibility to teach ID, or whatever other religious ideas the parent would like the kid to be shown.

[Mastiker]

Is that the response you are expecting from people?

Actually yes. My experience on the interweb has shown me that some sort of "god sucks" or such thing is the first to pop out of people's mouth. Which I hate. Not everyone is like that, and quite a lot of people actually post like you do. I just wanted to be funny. Which I wasn't.

As a side note: nice post.

The way someone believes is right should be translated in school. I mean, there should be electives for these kind of classes. If there is a student that believes in intelligent design, then there should be such a class for them. Not just intelligent design, but all aspects of religion-based science. That way no one feels obligated to learn something they don't believe in.

My friend suggested this (above quote) the other day.

[stillbornsinger]

Actually yes. My experience on the interweb has shown me that some sort of "god sucks" or such thing is the first to pop out of people's mouth. Which I hate. Not everyone is like that, and quite a lot of people actually post like you do. I just wanted to be funny. Which I wasn't.

As a side note: nice post.

Well, you have to take the good with the bad, there is an equal size of "atheist suck, we're right" camp as well.

And your initial topic is an excellent topic for discussion as well.

Regarding Mike's suggestion. I don't really think that's the right way to go about doing it, once again I would prefer my tax dollars did not go to any religious based classes with the exception of possibly a class that took an objective look at all religions something like "world religions and ideologies" That presents the subject as "hey... here's what people believe. Here is their history and its effect on the world." I would very much support a class such as that and would even like to see it as something mandatory. There are a lot of people out there who just have no clue about what other religions teach and the basic cultural issues involved. I believe its important for people to at least understand other cultures.

I think having a class specifically for ID is a waste of a semester, I would rather suggest if people think its necessary to have it at a school that there be an after school optional club created (like there are in many schools) that someone can attend at will.

Again though, separation of church and state... There are plenty of churches in the US to accommodate anyone who is interested in the subject.

[Mastiker]

Well what he was trying to say was not an entire class wasted on ID, but rather just beliefs reflected onto science, in all aspects. But yeah, it would have been a waste of tax money.

I think that "world religions" class would be perfect, because a lot of people in my school don't even know of any religions outside of "Christianity" "Judaism" and "muslim" and all they know is from the media and TV.

[belladonna]

listen to this.... darwin recanted his theories and became a minister... in my a.p. bio class last year we agreed that the theory of evolution was just a theory... and being that i'm a christian i believe that God created the earth, but i believe in a level of evolutionism because there is proof that we adapt to our surroundings, which is evolution...

[baslisks]

Well the universe is a giant equation. I wonder if I could make a nwe religion called dentian. Based on the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Series. Try and recreate gods last message to the universe.

[stillbornsinger]

darwin recanted his theories and became a minister...QUOTE]

sorry honey, that's just not true...

[quote=Wikipedia]
Views on religion
Main article: Charles Darwin's views on religion
Charles Darwin came from a Nonconformist background, but attended a Church of England school. At university studying Anglican theology to become a clergyman, he was a firm believer convinced by the teleological argument in William Paley's Natural Theology, which offered an argument for the existence of God from design. He joined the Voyage of the Beagle and later recalled that "Whilst on board the Beagle.. I was quite orthodox... But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament... was no more to be trusted than the... beliefs of any barbarian."

On return, while developing his theory of natural selection he came to think that the religious instinct had evolved with society and gradually lost his belief in the Bible. With the death of his daughter Annie, Darwin finally lost all faith in a beneficent God and saw Christianity as futile. He continued to give support to the local church and help with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church.

In his later life, Darwin was frequently asked about his religious views. He went as far as saying that he did "not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation", but was always insistent that he was agnostic and had "never been an atheist".

In concluding his biography of his grandfather Darwin recounted how after the death of Erasmus Darwin in 1802 false stories were circulated that he had called for Jesus on his deathbed, writing "Such was the state of Christian feeling in this country at the [time]... we may at least hope that nothing of the kind now prevails". Despite this hope, the "Lady Hope Story" claiming his sickbed conversion was published in 1915 and has since been much propagated by some Christian groups to the extent of becoming an urban legend, though the claims were refuted by Darwin's children.

Article in full (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin)



Mastiker- Bingo, that has been exactly my experience as well, and being able to travel all over asia and see what other relgions are out there has really been a bit of a culture shock to me. It shouldn't have been as much, more should have been taught in school. But I fear my experience of culture shock was far more subtle compared to that of some of my coworkers who were more sheltered than myself and who prefered MTV to discovery channel.

[baslisks]

I would love to travel to asia europe africa australlia and south america and live there for a year or two moving every 2 montsh. FInding out what its like. I hate being stuck in single places.

[stillbornsinger]

baslisks- It has been a very enjoyable experience for me... I've been too...

several US states
Singapore (4 or so times)
The Republic of Palau (several island of it, been twice)
Malaysia (Palau Tiomon, and Penang)
Hong Kong
Philippines
Indonesia (didn't get to go anwhere though)
Thailand (holy crazyness, no city in the US will EVER hold a candle to Pattaya beach, Las Vegas would be completely tame in comparison.)
Brunei
South Korea (to many times)
India (there now)
and of course Japan... (have lived there for about 2 years)

I'm probably missing a few too heh. oh well.

In pretty much all of those places there were things that completely blew me away and changed my perspective on life. I would't trade those experiences for anything.

Enjoying myself very much, and when I finish this deployment, I plan on writing a pretty big article and posting it here on what all those countries have been like and my experiences.

If you really do wish to travel, you may very well want to check into the military, especially the Navy, I don't think there is any way I'd have been able to travel to the places I've been and do the things I've done otherwise at this point in my life without the Navy. (I don't plan on reenlisting though)

[Kustom]

Originally Posted by Mike
The way someone believes is right should be translated in school. I mean, there should be electives for these kind of classes. If there is a student that believes in intelligent design, then there should be such a class for them. Not just intelligent design, but all aspects of religion-based science. That way no one feels obligated to learn something they don't believe in.


I have a big problem with that one. Beliefs and religion should be a conscious choice in a democracy, not something that is forced onto you by your parents from birth. It is an adult's choice, not a junior high student's choice: at this stage of his life, his beliefs should NOT be taken into account when designing the curriculum (obviously, if students could opt out of classes they don't like, how many would show up at school at all?).

School is mandatory, therefore your parents cannot "choose" that you won't learn to read or write, nor should they choose if you learn science. A disclaimer is fine if a large number of people think ID is right (which is not the case in many countries other than America, that's why us foreigners are so weirded out), however, since ID is not a scientific theory (explained at length in the other topic on evolution), it should be taught in a religious class, not scientific. Why mask beliefs under the false name of "science"? Beliefs cannot be science, there is plenty wrong with this: it contradicts all of the definitions of science you could come across.

Like you, I am very much in favor of a class on religions/atheism and how it impacted history and the world today. But I don't think we should blend facts and beliefs in the school system. The purpose of education is to enlighten the students, not confuse them... Evolution should be taught as a theory, students can always make the choice to ignore or reject it later, but they should have a chance to learn it first.

*Disclaimer, a bit changed from stillbornsinger's version: "Today we will discuss evolution. This is the only established scientific theory that we have to explain the diversity of species, and so far it has been supported by a lot of evidence. However, many people in the US do not believe this theory is compatible with the idea of Intelligent Design, which contends the species have been created by a superior being with a purpose and is an important belief in many religions. Darwin's theory will be taught in biology class, but we would like to encourage all of you to go out and talk to your parents, research into the subject, examine both explanations objectively and arrive at your own conclusion."

[stillbornsinger]

Kustom- excellent, I like it more than my own.

I do disagree with you though in your statement that parents do not have the right to force religion on their children.

Even though I am an atheist, I do support a parents right to raise their children however they please (within legal and reasonable means of course). I was raised in a Christian home, my mother and sister are extremely religious. Mother even taught at a Christian private school for some time. I took onboard and listened to their points of view and teachings. Went out and did my own research, did a fair amount of soul searching and thinking and eventually rejected the Christian doctrine.

That was when I was around 14, I'm 21 now.

Your parents reign over you is only limited to the first 18 years of your life (sometimes more or less) People can and have rejected their parents teachings and will continue to do so.

[erbiumfiber]

My daughter went to an Opus Dei Catholic school for seventh and eighth grades. When some parent at an open house asked the head of the science department about evolution, she said something to the effect of: species may evolve, but only God can create a soul.

Which I thought was a pretty good answer- separating the science from the religion.

Note: Opus Dei is a hyper-conservative group within the Catholic church (featured, badly, in the DaVinci Code) so if even they can admit evolution...

[Monkey]

The argument from the biologists point of view is nothing to do with whether ID or creationism is true or not.

It is to do with it being taught in science class.

You can discuss the merits of creationism and evolution all you like but the fact remains that ID and creationism in general can never ever be proved. They will never have scientific evidence to back them up.

Evolution does have evidence backing it up. Sure, it does have holes in the theory, but there is some very real scientific background to it.


Only science should be taught in a science class. Science always has evidence backing it up. ID and creationism is not science as it has no evidence. If you want an equal discussion of ID and creationism then make it a compulsory part of a Religious Education class or a Philosophy class. The one place those ideas should not be discussed is in a science class.


Leave the science in the science class and the religion in the religion class.

[setrict]

Only science should be taught in a science class.

Just to throw another log on the fire, where do we draw the line between science and history? Is it necessary for evolution theory to project itself back to the beginning to be a valid and useful scientific theory? The step from observable evolution to the origin of all life is a very large one, and serves little practical benefit when weighed against the idealogical conflict it raises. True science exists on a fine balance between evidence and supposition, if either significantly outweighs the other it should not be considered science. The theory of evolutionary origin currenty favors the supposition side of the scale to a considerable degree.

Teach observable evolution in public schools, and leave the extreme theories to university level students who have both the maturity and choice to make their own decisions.

[Nessa]

Raises hand.

I believe in my God, and I believe in evolution too. However, I don't believe intelligent design should be taught in science class. That kind of stuff should belong in a philosophy class.

[PopCulturePooka]

Its really funny to hear this nonsense from an Aussie standpoint.

In Australia, while a few people believe in creationism, theres very little debate about evolution being taught in schools. Therefore the theory is taught pretty damned well, including the more 'extreme ideas'.

Without being clouded by tales of a Magic Space Wizard making everything with some spare dirt from His Magic Space Garden, we just learn the most likely and more easily proven way.

Of course in public high schools there is no Relgious Education either. Got cancelled a good 10 odd years back when it was found that RE teachers were the most ill treated teachers by students. :D

[Mastiker]

Sweet this turned out into a good debate for once :D

stillbornsinger- isn't an atheist someone who believes in religion but rejects it on the basis that they still think they'll get into heaven? i don't know, just what my friend told me. whatever... although parents should not influence their kids into what religion they go into, until the age of ten, you really don't have a choice, and even then its really limited. most kids fail to continue with their religion, not because they lose faith, but because they lose interest. it's sad really... the attention span on this country has gone and effected our moralities...

erbiumfiber- I don't see how God creating a soul is seperation from state and church... it's not me being an ass, i just don't think it was explained well enough... but not all uptight religious places are able to admit that evolution is a good thing. (not saying Opes Dei is uptight)

monkey- that's exactly the type of arguement I tried to persuade to my youth group. (I'm not religious by any means, and the only reason I go to youth group is to have religious/political debates with people) ID and creationism, belongs in places where it makes sense to teach it, such as a church or youth group. but the science room is where you teach evolution BECAUSE it is a theory. just because it is a theory, does not make it any less credible. (thumbs up on the avatar by the way)

setrict- i believe in most public schools, observational evolution is taught. in fact, im still in public school, and it is really rare to find a student such as I who actually could tell you that "intelligent design" is not a tv show on HGTV. (and yes, that is what one of my fellow classmates thought it was, I shit you not) in fact, I highly doubt anyone in my class could point out who wrote the theory of evolution and whatnot. case in point: high school students are ignorant. i think its that whole "puberty" thing they've been trying to put past me for years...

nessa- you are what my youth group leader calls a "confused soul".... you're right up there with "pontius pilot" and "satan".

popculturepooka- religion education is usually taught seperately around my neck of the woods New England, (northeastern USA, for those of you that don't own a map) and is pressed on by the parents whether they believe strongly in it or not. lucky for me, I convinced my mom early on that God clearly didn't exist, and nobody in my family has had to go since. church either for that matter.... but in the good ole US of A...:
"In a Harris poll conducted in June, 55% of 1,000 adults surveyed said children should be taught creationism and intelligent design along with evolution in public schools. The same poll found that 54% did not believe humans had developed from an earlier species- up from 45% with that view in 1994- althought other polls have not detected this rise" ~ from the same article as first post.
America is divided in the subject.

[Expert Insomniac]

Interestingly enough, I recently read a similar debate about this. There are some private Christian schools that do not teach evolution at all. The UC system (a group of colleges in California for those who don't know) refused to accept this kids on the basis that since they were not taught evolution, they weren't given the skills to function in a college level science class.

I think that's the biggest problem scientists have. It's not the papagraph introduction given to kids about evolution, it's that there are many schools that don't even teach it.

In my high school biology class, when my teacher started talking about evolution, she said "I know that some of you have religious beliefs that conflict with evolution. However, this is a science class, so I will be teaching you the scientific outlook."

And the fact is... that is how it should be handled. Whether you believe in ID or evolution isn't the problem... it's a science class, so science should be taught. Just like if someone was taking a class on religion or Christianity, evolution shouldn't be brought up, because evolution isn't religion. If anything, the debate about ID versus evolution is best suited for a history class. But I doubt one class is going to change many people's perceptions, regardless of what they believe.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I never got to learn about Darwins Theory in High School because my biology teacher didn't want to deal with parents complaining to him that their child is being told that God doesn't exist.

Excuse me...but where does a theory that man was monkey come into play that "God doesn't exist?" If anything I think Darwins theory only shows the complexity of God's design for humans and the Earth.

I am a firm believer that their is a God and its not only faith, but a firm and utter belief that there is someone out there.

The problem is that religious people are too worried that their children will be swayed to think that God doesn't exist if we evolved from monkeys. What the hell? Why not? God could of made us monkeys to evolve into man as his giant grand scheme. It could of been this "I am going to create you in my image, but first I'm going to give you a few million years of evolution before that even happens."

Even in one passage it says "A day is to 1000 years as 1000 years is a day" meaning that time has no meaning to God.

I know I am rambling, but what I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with teaching that in school.

[Kragar]

Excuse me...but where does a theory that man was monkey come into play that "God doesn't exist?" If anything I think Darwins theory only shows the complexity of God's design for humans and the Earth.

It's another 19th century battle that's still being fought.

To put it simply, before the nineteenth century, most people accepted that God created the Earth about 6000 years before. Then the fields of archaeology, paleontology, comparative geology and anthropology began to show that the numbers didn't make sense. If you follow the logic of the science, the world had to be hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years old. Which means the church was wrong, again.*

Evolution also had this time-frame problem, but strikes at something more important: man's special place as God's creation. We are supposed to be the crown of creation, the point to the whole exercise. If we are from the same material as monkeys, then doesn't that invalidate out "specialness." Anti-Darwinians think so.

---
*Interestingly, a similar problem came up when Europeans discovered America. Here was a land with a people who had never heard of God. The rest of Asia had at least had a chance to hear of God, and simply rejected Him. The Americas never even had that chance. Why would God create a land and a people and then deliberately refuse to give them a chance to be saved? Was this God's mercy?

[Kustom]

*Interestingly, a similar problem came up when Europeans discovered America. Here was a land with a people who had never heard of God. The rest of Asia had at least had a chance to hear of God, and simply rejected Him. The Americas never even had that chance. Why would God create a land and a people and then deliberately refuse to give them a chance to be saved? Was this God's mercy?
This was resolved by the Catholic church explaining by decree that Native Americans did not have a soul... :mad:

[RDClip]

Evolution also had this time-frame problem, but strikes at something more important: man's special place as God's creation. We are supposed to be the crown of creation, the point to the whole exercise. If we are from the same material as monkeys, then doesn't that invalidate out "specialness." Anti-Darwinians think so.
Seems like the same problem as when it was discovered Earth wasn't the center of the universe.

[Mastiker]

*shrugs shoulders* Shit happens.

It's odd that people would consider that creationism is a suitable replacement for evolution.

Creationism: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible

Evolution: The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.

completely different ideas, and it is clear which one belongs in the classroom, and which one belongs in church.

[Nessa]

nessa- you are what my youth group leader calls a "confused soul".... you're right up there with "pontius pilot" and "satan".


W00t. Never thought Satan would be "up" there.;)

[Mastiker]

yeah, you lucked out though. could have been grouped with hitler, and god knows what that would have done to your rep.

[DarkFire168]

listen to this.... darwin recanted his theories and became a minister... in my a.p. bio class last year we agreed that the theory of evolution was just a theory... and being that i'm a christian i believe that God created the earth, but i believe in a level of evolutionism because there is proof that we adapt to our surroundings, which is evolution...

I wish people would quit saying this, because it's simply completely untrue.

From James Moore's The Darwin Legend

"In the years after Darwin's death, there were occasional rumors of a deathbed conversion. Such stories are apparently not uncommon when a prominent "enemy" of Christianity dies.

It is noteworthy that the story as first told does not report a conversion (though it seems to portray Darwin as a Christian) or a renunciation of evolution (though it has Darwin upset that some have "made a religion" of his theories). While this story was somewhat embellished in later versions, the deathbed conversion and rejection of evolution only appear in secondary accounts, primarily tracts, that further distorted whatever truth might have been in Lady Hope's original account.

Moore concludes that the amount of truth in that account is, contrary to the denials of Darwin's family, greater than zero. While it misrepresents Darwin's religious views and contains some elements that cannot be true, other elements appear to be accurate. The author concludes that it is likely that Lady Hope was received by the Darwins sometime in the Fall of 1881, and that Darwin might well have said kind words about her work in the community and expressed distress at the use of his theories to promote radical atheism. "


He only wanted to downplay the controversy that his theory had created, just like he always had. Nothing more.

Also, Darwin was never a priest.

[DarkFire168]

My daughter went to an Opus Dei Catholic school for seventh and eighth grades. When some parent at an open house asked the head of the science department about evolution, she said something to the effect of: species may evolve, but only God can create a soul.

Which I thought was a pretty good answer- separating the science from the religion.

Note: Opus Dei is a hyper-conservative group within the Catholic church (featured, badly, in the DaVinci Code) so if even they can admit evolution...


Opus Dei, crazy, I didn't know they had schools. I didn't mean crazy in a bad way though either, it's just something I say when I'm astounded with a new fact.

I think that the majority of the world should just learn to seperate science from religion and we'll be better for it. I don't care what you personally believe, as long as those beliefs don't include killing me for no reason, just don't try and cram it down my throat.

[Ichisan]

This is soooo not a debate outside America. This kind of 'cultural difference' is one reason for anti-Americanism. If I can generalize from personal experience here, non-Americans seeing this debate going on usually react like this on an emotional level:

*jaw drops*
Oh...my...God. They're not kidding!
Wow, these Americans are so unbelievably ignorant.
*tells friends*

Now, after reading a number of these debates, I recognize that it's a real question and an interesting one, and I can even see that just having this kind of debate can be seen as a sign of a vibrant culture. I mean it's good to question orthodoxy and improve our understanding of important issues.

On the other hand, on an emotional level I'm still a bit put off. For every well-informed logical poster there seem to be 2 people with fundamental misconceptions about evolution. A lot of people asking 'why did some animals not evolve?' for instance. That smacks of cheap, anti-evolutionary, christian propaganda at work.

Well, anyway, I just wanted to let you all know...

[DarkFire168]

This is soooo not a debate outside America. This kind of 'cultural difference' is one reason for anti-Americanism. If I can generalize from personal experience here, non-Americans seeing this debate going on usually react like this on an emotional level:

*jaw drops*
Oh...my...God. They're not kidding!
Wow, these Americans are so unbelievably ignorant.
*tells friends*

Wait, people hate us because we debate whether or not ridiculous fiction should be crammed in with our science classes? Dude, that's fucked up. I'm joking of course. :P

[Enjoy]

I'm a practicing Roman Catholic. I believe Evolution should be taught in schools, not one religion's, or even many religious ideas.

I believe in the seperation of church and state.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I really hope that you aren't using *church* as in all Christians are bad ignorant people.

I'm not going to argue the Bible with people online or people I know. From what I learned is that if you don't want to hear it then you should just shut up before you get into an argument you really don't want to get into.

What I do think though is that science and religion can go hand in hand. Science *can* prove that their is something out there with a grand design.

People who think the Earth is 6000 years old is completely retarded.

[PopCulturePooka]

She means that government shouldn't be influenced by the 'church' or religious matters. Is all.

[setrict]

Creationism: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible
Just because beating a dead horse can be fun... I mean no offense, but to say that Creationism is based completely on the literal interpretation bible is a fairly narrow view of the concept.
She means that government shouldn't be influenced by the 'church' or religious matters. Is all.
I've always wondered why many people in the US people want to equate "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" with "not influenced by religious matters". The original constitutional intent was the seperation of church and state to prevent the establishment of an 'official' and forced state religion which had been one of the primary reasons for many immigrants to flee to this country.

No where was it intended that government should not be influenced by religion Religion is a part of the people, and a democracy is supposed to be a reflection of the people. We have lobby groups by realtors, bankers, drug companies, NAACP, ACLU, NFIB, and many many others. I fail to see how groups of religious people lobbying the goverment on issues that are important to them should be seen any less favorably than these secular groups. So long as it is clear that government is not enforcing religious belief, which is the problem teaching biblical creationist theory in science class, it shouldn't be an issue.

[Roxie]

Excuse me...but where does a theory that man was monkey come into play that "God doesn't exist?" If anything I think Darwins theory only shows the complexity of God's design for humans and the Earth.

I am a firm believer that their is a God and its not only faith, but a firm and utter belief that there is someone out there.

The problem is that religious people are too worried that their children will be swayed to think that God doesn't exist if we evolved from monkeys. What the hell? Why not? God could of made us monkeys to evolve into man as his giant grand scheme. It could of been this "I am going to create you in my image, but first I'm going to give you a few million years of evolution before that even happens."

Even in one passage it says "A day is to 1000 years as 1000 years is a day" meaning that time has no meaning to God.

I know I am rambling, but what I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with teaching that in school.
I agree 100%!!! finally someone gets it! :) :)

[stillbornsinger]

[QUOTE=setrict]
I've always wondered why many people in the US people want to equate "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" with "not influenced by religious matters". QUOTE]

Its not just that, its so... so much more...

Do some searches on quotes from the founding fathers regarding religion, church, laws, etc. Adrew Jackson especially comes to mind as being one of the most vocal.

And before someone suggest the American country was founded on Christian principals as is brought up so often (from my experience) in online debates about similar subjects.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a9/stillbornsinger/churchstate.jpg

[rush]

America, technically, was founded on Christian principles. Remember, some of the first people to colonize America were very religous, like the Puritans for example. While the US itself wasn't founded on any specific religion, the Christian principles were already there, had been there for centuries, and some still survive even to today.

Not that it really matters though. One would expect a country to have some of the same principles as the people that founded it.

[setrict]

Andrew Jackson: We ought therefor to consider all good christians, whose walk corresponds with their professions, be him Presbeterian, Episcopalian, Baptist, methodist or Roman catholic. let it be remembered by your Grandmother that no established religion can exist under our glorious constitution." -- letter to Ellen Hanson, 25 March 1835
Jefferson:" no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship" but that all people "shall be free to profess ... their opinion in matters of religion."
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

The above link is to Jefferson's Wall of Seperation letter on which the constitutional amendment describing seperation of church and state is based. He clearly indicates that the elected officials should only act on the behalf of their constituents, and not allow their actions to be swayed by personal religious affiliations. That is seperation of church and state.

No where does it say that the voting populace should be required to vote only considering lowest common denominator ideals. No where does it say that a person should check their religion at the polling booth door. If an elected official is to act on the behalf of his/her constituents, is it wrong or those constituents to request action based on religious belief? Some people seem to think so. What the founding fathers and subsequent leaders have fought for is that the actual machinery of goverment should be free from religious influence by those trusted with its operation.

Which is a liar? Neither if considered in context. This nation was founded in no small part on Judeo Christian values. It was not founded as an arm of any religion, but the many of the values on which our government is based definately draw Christianity. Washington states that the nation was not founded on the Christian religion. He's basically saying that the nation is not some Christian theocracy. Values not religion.

[Mastiker]

Just because beating a dead horse can be fun... I mean no offense, but to say that Creationism is based completely on the literal interpretation bible is a fairly narrow view of the concept.

Tell that to dictionary.com :D

I've always wondered why many people in the US people want to equate "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" with "not influenced by religious matters". The original constitutional intent was the seperation of church and state to prevent the establishment of an 'official' and forced state religion which had been one of the primary reasons for many immigrants to flee to this country.

No where was it intended that government should not be influenced by religion Religion is a part of the people, and a democracy is supposed to be a reflection of the people. We have lobby groups by realtors, bankers, drug companies, NAACP, ACLU, NFIB, and many many others. I fail to see how groups of religious people lobbying the goverment on issues that are important to them should be seen any less favorably than these secular groups. So long as it is clear that government is not enforcing religious belief, which is the problem teaching biblical creationist theory in science class, it shouldn't be an issue.

Religion is a part of the people... and there are many religions to go with the many people. Each religion has their own theory on how man was placed onto this earth. For instance, the Aztecs believed a giant pig dug the humans out of the earth (I may be paraphrasing) and that sounds kind of ridiculous, but that was their beliefs. However, in science there is one widely accepted theory, and that is Darwin's theory of evolution. The problem with religion, in this sense, is that there is an indefinite amount of theories on how man came to be as they are now. Religious theories should be something we teach in perhaps a history class, but only as a way to understand how other cultures live, not to get a better understanding of the human race.

[Arctic_Slicer]

People seem to be confusing the creationism with Intelligent Design. The debate is about teaching intelligent desing in schools not creationism. Creationism as was said before is based on literal interpertaion of the bible, as such most people who subscribe to creationism are very ignorant as they advocate that the Earth is only 6000 years old and are openly ignorant of things such as radiometric dating, fossil records, dedrochronology, and pretty much anything that proves their precious bible wrong. Intelligent design is alot more vague as it simply states that the universerse was set in motion by an intelligent being or beings.

Many of you also seem to have a lack of understanding on the concept of evolution and why the theory of evolution is a very widely accepted view. Charles Darwin wrote his book "Origin of Species" after spending extended time on the Galapagos Islands. His book is based upon observations he made during his time there. What gives his theory so much merit is the abundance of evidence supporting this theory. Another important discovery that strongly supports this theory is Gregor Mendal's discovery of genetics. I really have no idea why most people forget about him in these discussions but Gregor Mendal is probabally more important to this theory that Darwin himself. Mendal's discovery of genetics is not theory put proven fact. Genetics does alot to help explain why some traits are more likely to succeed than others and why some traits become passive or dominant.

There is also lots of modern day evidence that helps support the theory of evolution. There are many examples of this, one of the most common examples used is Elephants. From this entry in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephants) we have the following exceprt under "harvest":

The harvest of elephants, both legal and illegal, has had some unexpected consequences on elephant anatomy as well. African ivory hunters, by killing only tusked elephants, have given a much larger chance of mating to elephants with small tusks or no tusks at all. The propagation of the absent-tusk gene has resulted in the birth of large numbers of tuskless elephants, now approaching 30% in some populations (compare with a rate of about 1% in 1930). Tusklessness, once a very rare genetic abnormality, has become a widespread hereditary trait. [1] It is possible, if unlikely, that continued selection pressure could bring about a complete absence of tusks in African elephants, a development normally requiring thousands of years of evolution. The effect of tuskless elephants on the environment, and on the elephants themselves, could be dramatic. Elephants use their tusks to root around in the ground for necessary minerals, tear apart vegetation, and spar with one another for mating rights. Without tusks, elephant behavior could change dramatically. [2]

The other important misconception I see is the quote "survival of the fittest". That quote was not made by Charles Darwin but by Herbert Spencer, an economist who believed in something known as social Darwinism. He believed it would be best that the government not support the poor or that handicap that those "unfit" to survive should be left to die. By doing so you would be helping to remove genetic handicaps from the gene pool(genetics again) as well saving government money for use on more important things.

It's also important to note that Charles Darwin was British and if he was alligned with any particular religion he most certainally would have been Anglican.

[Roxie]

Raises hand.

I believe in my God, and I believe in evolution too. However, I don't believe intelligent design should be taught in science class. That kind of stuff should belong in a philosophy class.
Wow, I completely agree with that too.

Leave the science in science class. That's where it belongs. Religion is up to the parents and later, to the young adult. Public schools have no, and shouldn't have any, business in it.


nessa- you are what my youth group leader calls a "confused soul".... you're right up there with "pontius pilot" and "satan".


She doesn't seem confused to me at all. She stated, with perfect clarity, what her beliefs are. How can she be confused when her statement was nothing less than crystal?

[DarkFire168]

setric,

There is nothing wrong with religious groups recieving equal lobbying rights as any other lobbyist group (NAACP, NRA, Etc.), what is a problem is that people seem to think that they can force their religion down our throats. Just because a congressman is a christian doesn't mean that all, or even most, of his constituents are christian. Therefore, the seperation of church and state should be extended to meet with current political climates. I'm no rabid aetheist, I don't believe in god that's for certain, but I don't hate people who do and call them ignorant, everyone has the right to believe what they want. Whether it be that we were created out of dirt or whether a giant snake regurgiatated us. It's all personal choice. But because of the diversity of religion in our country in this day and age, religion should no longer sway politicians. It should certainly not be pushed onto others for no other reason than that the person doing the pushing believes they have the right to, because quite frankly they don't.

[DarkFire168]

By the way, what in the hell is a "pontius pilot"?

[Kustom]

Some great Jefferson quotes on religion:

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)

I see no reason why this guy would have supported teaching religious beliefs on an "intelligent design" under the disguise of science.

[Jynx_lucky_j]

Ok first of all i register specifically for this debate XD

I am a chistian, nondominal (i don't believe in dominations). But that has little infuance on my following oppinions. Evolution should absolutely be taught in scince. However I dont belive it should be taught as fact because as of right now it is only a theory, its well grounded and heavily supported by facts...But is is still only a theory. I remember one of my high school scinece classes, the first thing the teacher taugh us was the differance between a hypothosis, a theory, and a law.

Essentailly the dumbed down verson is something like this... A hypothosis is essentailly and idea, this is how you think it works but you dont really have any proof. For instance the Hypothosis of Contenintial Drift, The contaninants looks like they fit togather like a puzzle so i think they used to all be connected (Hypothosis of Contenintial Drift is not to be confused with its more advanced cousin the Theory of Platetectonics which has fact to back it up), A Theory is an idea that has facts that back it up, and can not be disproved. However a theory can not account for everything, there are still holes. For instance the Theory of Evolution has many things backing it up, but it still can explain certain gaping holes at this time. A Law is an idea that have been proven to work in every instance, there is nothing unaccounted for. It's always works exactly like it says it works. For instance the Law of Gravity, works every single time go ahead and try it out.

I think if you are going to teach the Theory of eveolution you need to teach it all not just the parts you like. If your going to teach the supporting facts, then you should teach the opposing facts as well, and the things that it can not explain. I could say brushing you teeth will kill you, and i have facts to prove it. Every single person that has every brushed their teeth eventually dies! Therefore brush your teeth is deadly...right? You see, you can just teach the parts that you want people to belive. Not if you REALLY want them to have a full education. The scintist that study evolution today can't just ignore the facts they don't like, its up to them to figure out whats the matter here and adjust the theory appropieatly until it become Law. Just as scientist had to figure out why gravity didnt work right in outer space. They figured out that every object creates gravity according to its mass, no object=no mass=no gravity.



As a couple fun side notes...
I never understood the logical thought process behind aethism, arent you taking a really big gamble there? I'm if your right then alls well and good, but if you wrong then your screwed! Wear as me if i'm wrong and there is no god then i'm just another rotting corpse like you, but if im right then i'm alot better off than you are =P.

As for earth not being the center of the universe, we dont know that. We know that we are not the center of our galaxy. But we havent discovered the entire universe yet, so technically we COULD be in the center still. And we are the center of the KNOWN universe, because we can see the same distance in all directions ^^

[Kustom]

As a couple fun side notes...
I never understood the logical thought process behind aethism, arent you taking a really big gamble there? I'm if your right then alls well and good, but if you wrong then your screwed! Wear as me if i'm wrong and there is no god then i'm just another rotting corpse like you, but if im right then i'm alot better off than you are =P.


Unless the real God is a jealous god and then he might have prepared a special circle of hell for all the people who worshipped the wrong god. ;)

If you'd really like to know, my own calculation is this: if there is such a thing as a benevolent God, he will be merciful to those who used reasonable doubt and dismissed the existence of God for lack of proof, but send all the fanatics who like to ruin others' lives by forcing their beliefs onto them down to hell, where they belong. If it turns out God is made in my image, then that's what he'll do for sure! :D
On a side note, if God knows everything, he will probably not give a warm welcome to people who believed in him just "to be on the safe side"...

Once again, Jefferson puts it much better than I do:

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787


Come with us, to the dark side of atheism... Ssssssss...

[Mastiker]

By the way, what in the hell is a "pontius pilot"?

Im not exactly sure on this one, but I think its the guy that ratted out Jesus.

As for the rest of this... holy shit, there's a lot of people in one night... my dial-up cannot take that much.

[Roxie]

By the way, what in the hell is a "pontius pilot"?

Wow, for someone who has "Jesus is Zombie" in their description, I'm surprised you don't know about him...

Who suffered under Pontius Pilate.
Was cruxified, dead, and buried.
On the third day he rose from the dead,
Ascended into heaven, and siteth at the right hand
of our father The Lord.

Pontius Pilate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilatus)

[Arctic_Slicer]

I prefer to be agnostic as I learned along time ago that it will make no difference in my life if god like beings exist or not.

[Arctic_Slicer]

Wow, for someone who has "Jesus is Zombie" in their description, I'm surprised you don't know about him...

Who suffered under Pontius Pilate.
Was cruxified, dead, and buried.
On the third day he rose from the dead,
Ascended into heaven, and siteth at the right hand
of our father The Lord.

Pontius Pilate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilatus)


With all do respect many people who claim to be "Christians" don't seem to know who he is. Hell, most Christians don't seem to know that there was no man named "Christ". Christ is a title not a name. The so called savior was a man known as Jesus of Nazereth not Jesus Christ. This easily confirmed and well documented fact seems to unknown to the bulk of Christian society.

[PopCulturePooka]

I never understood the logical thought process behind aethism, arent you taking a really big gamble there? I'm if your right then alls well and good, but if you wrong then your screwed! Wear as me if i'm wrong and there is no god then i'm just another rotting corpse like you, but if im right then i'm alot better off than you are =P.

And if you die and get to the afterlife and see Ares, Odin, Budhha, the Rainbow Serpent or Vishnu waiting rather angrily for you instead of God, what do you do?

[Arctic_Slicer]

And if you die and get to the afterlife and see Ares, Odin, Budhha, the Rainbow Serpent or Vishnu waiting rather angrily for you instead of God, what do you do?

That reminds me of my friend who always says: "My gods can beat your god."

[Mastiker]

"A wise man knows God by many names." ~ a hindu proverb.

Besides, isn't God supposed to be forgiving? If an atheist got into heaven and said "oops, I was wrong." Shouldn't God allow them into the pearly gates? And this hell business is the same, if someone wants to atone then God has no choice but to let them in. It's sort of a flaw in the system... and I bet mormons are the only ones that figured this out!... those polymarrying bastards... actually I have nothing wrong with mormons. They be cool people.

[PopCulturePooka]

Hell looks a lot more fun anyway!

All the cool people are down there. Probably with hot pirate devil chicks.

[Mastiker]

And if you die and get to the afterlife and see Ares, Odin, Budhha, the Rainbow Serpent or Vishnu waiting rather angrily for you instead of God, what do you do?


Buddha isn't a god, just a teacher :D He was the "enlightened one" but he was far from a god. If sitting down and not doing anything for 48 days made you a god, then I would be the ultimate being.

[PopCulturePooka]

Buddha isn't a god, just a teacher :D He was the "enlightened one" but he was far from a god. If sitting down and not doing anything for 48 days made you a god, then I would be the ultimate being.
Lol I know, just being argumentative.

[Mastiker]

Lol I know, just being argumentative.

Ah welll um. Fine then.

I'm gonna return to my work now. :D later peeps

[stillbornsinger]

Jynx_lucky_j- So how about if your wrong you wasted your whole life for something that wasn't true?

I am an atheist because I simply cannot accept the Christian doctrine (as well as the other religions of the same family) I have many reasons for this and it took me several years of heavy thinking to get to this point. I don't really have the time or desire to go through all of them at the moment though.

Above all though, I simply cannot believe in the "we're right, your going to hell" bit. Because an awful lot of great people would end up in hell.

Of all the eastern religions I've looked into, none of them seemed any more realistic. Budhism is an interesting concept, and I've been to a few services but I don't think of Budhism really as a religion the same way as other religions.

Perhaps there is a higher power, perhaps there isn't... if there is something that created and guides the entire univers it is obviously well outside of the realm of what I could possibly comprehend. And until it makes itself clearly obvious and known to me then I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

[Roxie]

With all do respect many people who claim to be "Christians" don't seem to know who he is. Hell, most Christians don't seem to know that there was no man named "Christ". Christ is a title not a name. The so called savior was a man known as Jesus of Nazereth not Jesus Christ. This easily confirmed and well documented fact seems to unknown to the bulk of Christian society.
Yeah, that I do know.

In my experience, (outside of Church, of course) most Christians say Jesus, or Jesus Christ, which would indicate "Christ" as a title.

[Mastiker]

Jynx_lucky_j- So how about if your wrong you wasted your whole life for something that wasn't true?

I am an atheist because I simply cannot accept the Christian doctrine (as well as the other religions of the same family) I have many reasons for this and it took me several years of heavy thinking to get to this point. I don't really have the time or desire to go through all of them at the moment though.

Above all though, I simply cannot believe in the "we're right, your going to hell" bit. Because an awful lot of great people would end up in hell.


Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Unreligious: Indifferent to religion

Thank you ditionary.com :D

I think that you are simply Unreligious, not an atheist, at least by definition.

[Kustom]

Im not exactly sure on this one, but I think its the guy that ratted out Jesus.


Ahem, I'm not that knowledgeable about Christianity but wouldn't that be Judas?
:confused:

Pilate was the roman official who sent Jesus to his cross.

[Mastiker]

Ahem, I'm not that knowledgeable about Christianity but wouldn't that be Judas?
:confused:

Pilate was the roman official who sent Jesus to his cross.

I was close. It wasn't like I said "IT WAS THAT GUY FROM JEOPORDY!"

I probably just misread the "Who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was cruxified, dead, and buried" part.

[Jynx_lucky_j]

I find it kind of funny that my fun side note got far more attention than my main argument. So anyways here i am to defend my joke :D

Unless the real God is a jealous god and then he might have prepared a special circle of hell for all the people who worshipped the wrong god.
And if you die and get to the afterlife and see Ares, Odin, Budhha, the Rainbow Serpent or Vishnu waiting rather angrily for you instead of God, what do you do?
Well accoding to most religions thier god(s) are jealous deities and are not going to put up with people worshiping other gods.

For this argument we will only consider religions that require belief to go to the "good placce" after death. Any beiliefs that state that your after life depends solely on how you lived your life or "everyone wins" religions don't factor into this. The reason is that in those cases the end result is similar to that of aethism in that in the end your beliefs dont effect what happens to you when you die.

Lets say just for example purposes that 10 religions fall in to the appropiate catagory, If the one of these 10 is right then there is a 10% chance you chose the right one. If one of the other 10 religions are right then you just as screwed as everyone else. But if none of the other 10 or right you are still home free, maybe you'll be reincarnated as a wombat or something =P

If you'd really like to know, my own calculation is this: if there is such a thing as a benevolent God, he will be merciful to those who used reasonable doubt and dismissed the existence of God for lack of proof, but send all the fanatics who like to ruin others' lives by forcing their beliefs onto them down to hell, where they belong. If it turns out God is made in my image, then that's what he'll do for sure!
Besides, isn't God supposed to be forgiving? If an atheist got into heaven and said "oops, I was wrong." Shouldn't God allow them into the pearly gates? And this hell business is the same, if someone wants to atone then God has no choice but to let them in. It's sort of a flaw in the system...
Since we seem to be speaking of Christain religion, i'll use that. If you read the bible god is both benevolent and vengefull. He helps his people but if you cross him he will strike you down. If you have incured his rath there is only one way to appease apease him. A blood sacrifice. Blood washes away sins. the greater the sin the greater the sacrifice needs to be. So why aren't christians out there sacrificing small goats and thier first born sons? Because god made sacrifice so great that it washed away all the past and future sins of everyone that belives in him. He sacrificed his own son, Jesus. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so those that belivith in him shalt not die, but have ever lasting life."

There are two catches though. First you must believe in him. You can't just say "Oh shit, your real! I'm sorry now. Will you still let me in?" when your standing in front of him, thats similar to saying "Oh your rich? I want to be your freind now. No I didn't mean it when i told you to get lost." The second catch and the one i think catches more people than the first, is you must be repentant of you sins. If you're not truely sorry then no amount of blood will wash away your sins. There is a world of differance in being sorry for what you did and being sorry because your being punnished.


Jynx_lucky_j- So how about if your wrong you wasted your whole life for something that wasn't true?
How am i wasting my life? I still have fun. Hang out with freinds. I am just like anyone else. Honestly i havent even been to church in years so you can't even say that im wasting an hour a week. No where does it say that you have to go to church to go to heaven. Hell i waste more time on the computer than i waste on my religion. Even the Christian values are very similar to societies values. So some how by not killing people, not stealing, not cheating on my wife, being compassionate twards others, and sharing what i think openly, i am somehow wasting my life? I'd dare say that i am living a better life than many people, at least going by my own personal values.

On a side note, if God knows everything, he will probably not give a warm welcome to people who believed in him just "to be on the safe side"... You are absolutely correct! Of course if your just saying that you belive in him to be on the safe side then you dont really belive in him do you? :D But then, believing and worshiping are two diferant things. Even the Devil belives there is a god.


With all do respect many people who claim to be "Christians" don't seem to know who he is. You are very correct, most chistians don't really know as much about their religion as they should. Forinstance the blood sacrifices above. This is because they were raised in to it, they just take the whole thing for granted and never question. Personally i was raise as a christian, my mom took me to church every sunday and my grandmother even became a minister (btw i own much of my beliefs to her even though i dont agree with her that much, as she never sugar coated the bible with stuff most children get like "If your good, and go to church, and eat you vegetables you go to heaven."). But i was rather uninterested in the whole thing. It wasn't til sevral year later when my family stopped going to church for various reason and i did my own soul searching that i had a revalation and became a devote christian independant of what i was raised on. One reason i don't go to church even now is that i don't agree with alot of what they teach. For instance...

and I bet mormons are the only ones that figured this out!... those polymarrying bastards Did you know that the bible never says that people should practice monogomy? In fact many very pomanate people that served god in the bible had multiple wives. The only stipulation is that a PREIST should be a man of one wife, so not to distract him from serving the lord and his people. I'm more than happy with my one wife, and im not interested in having anymore, i dont think i could handle it even if i did. But i have no problem with other wishing to be in a polygamous marrige. Monogomy, in this country at least) springs from a cultural belief not a religous one.

Anyways a faith that is not challanged is a weak faith indeed.


Is so rare to find an intellegent discussion on the internet regarding anything, much less religion. Keep up the good work everyone :)

[Mastiker]

Anyways a faith that is not challanged is a weak faith indeed.


Is so rare to find an intellegent discussion on the internet regarding anything, much less religion. Keep up the good work everyone :)

I didn't want to repeat the whole thing cause... well duh. My last comment you quoted was meant as a joke but I really didn't think of it like that! I'm like the only kid that actually thinks its okay to date like twelve people at once...

Anywho, I clipped this because I liked it a lot. I challenged my faith, and realized its not the thing for me. I've lost faith in not just God, but humanity itself. But that's just me!

And it is DAMN hard to find even a slightly decent discussion anywhere else on the internet. This is why this site rocks :D Even the retarded topics (see "room with padded walls") have some sort of intelligence behind them!

RESUME TOPIC!

[kiev33]

Went out and did my own research, did a fair amount of soul searching and thinking and eventually rejected the Christian doctrine.

I wonder exactly what your feelings towards Christians are though, since your avatar seems designed to offend them. I think it is funny, and I laugh at Christians who can't think outside their narrow worldview enough to realize that Christianity and science are not exclusive to each other. I just think maybe there is some kind of animosity there that you may not realize.

kevin

[kiev33]

Above all though, I simply cannot believe in the "we're right, your going to hell" bit. Because an awful lot of great people would end up in hell.

You know, as a Christian, I completely agree with this. The "majority" of Christians nowadays who seem to be all over television make me sick. They are so busy hating and demeaning others with their holier-than-thou attitudes, that I wish they could see where exactly they will end up.

I do not believe that God will let people who don't believe in Him or understand the doctrine go to Hell. that's just my personal opinion, but the old fire and brimstone stuff seems to have gone out the window with Jesus.

If all these Christians would read the New Testament and try to live their lives the way Jesus did, and think the way he did, Christians as a whole would not have such a bad rep. We really should be the original peace luving hippies.

The attitude that many seem to have nowadays, which is more akin to Old Testament Judaism, is driving many away from the fold and ruining the message, and I think the ones who are doing that will find out in the end, that all their bluff and hatred will guarantee them a spot in the place they seem so eager to condemn others to. Just my personal opinion, and probably way off topic.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread. :D

[ArkhanTerra]

My take on this issue is that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally. It's a collection of nice ideas and good values, inspired or not, I don't believe that God asked Noah to bring 2 of everything on a big ass boat (but I do love the sound "Ark"), but there was a flood in the region and things got passed down via oral tradition.

If you take one part of the Bible literally, you take it all literally, and if you reject one piece in the Bible as true and another as exagguration, then who are you to say what is right with the book and what is wrong? I say it's all or nothing. There's some truth to the Bible, but I don't think it's all 100% accurate.

There's my stance. The Bible is a book of ideas, not of history. Science should have more authority, because you can't really "not believe" in science.

[stillbornsinger]

I wonder exactly what your feelings towards Christians are though, since your avatar seems designed to offend them. I think it is funny, and I laugh at Christians who can't think outside their narrow worldview enough to realize that Christianity and science are not exclusive to each other. I just think maybe there is some kind of animosity there that you may not realize.

kevin

Animosity towards Christians? no... Perhaps to the church as a whole though. I think the Christian religion has done far more harm over the course of history than it has done good. I view the cross in the same light that I view a swashtika.

If someone wants to be Christian, then be my guest I do believe in religious freedom as one of the core values that this country was founded on. But I'm quite frankly terrified of the idea of living in a country where religion is so intertwined with the government that its laws are inescapable. I've been to Muslem countries and I would never want to live in any that I've been to. I could also see it as fairly possible that we could go further down that road, especially if we keep putting people into office like Bush.

But back to Christians themselves, I've met many that are really great people. They use the religion and its values to better their lives and as a moral guideline. They are the minority though, most of the Christians, especially the ones who profess it the most that I know and work with, are some of the worst hypocrites.

[DarkFire168]

Wow, for someone who has "Jesus is Zombie" in their description, I'm surprised you don't know about him...

Who suffered under Pontius Pilate.
Was cruxified, dead, and buried.
On the third day he rose from the dead,
Ascended into heaven, and siteth at the right hand
of our father The Lord.

Pontius Pilate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilatus)


Oh holy shit. My bad forgot all about him. The roman head of state in the area that had jesus crucified. Thanks.

[stillbornsinger]

Oh yeah, and my avatar... I didn't choose it with the intent of offending people, it was more just because I like sushi and I thought it was kinda funny.

ArkhanTerra- I like your take on things and think you make an excellent point.

To add to what you said though, the area where much of the writing from the old testiment originated from was located between the Tigris and Euphreties (sp?) river and those two rivers did flood from time to time, flooding all of the area between them. So to anyone living in that time and area it would have seemed to them that the entire world was flooded.

[DarkFire168]

By the way, Pascals Wager works not just with christians as Pooka pointed out. There are hundreds of thousands of religions in the past, present, and future of this world. How do you know that Christianity is right? How do you know the Aztecs weren't correct and when you get to the afterlife you won't be torn to shreds for all eternity by demons for not believing in Quetzlcoatal? You don't.

[Mastiker]

By the way, Pascals Wager works not just with christians as Pooka pointed out. There are hundreds of thousands of religions in the past, present, and future of this world. How do you know that Christianity is right? How do you know the Aztecs weren't correct and when you get to the afterlife you won't be torn to shreds for all eternity by demons for not believing in Quetzlcoatal? You don't.

I don't want to be torn to shreds because I don't believe in a god I can't pronounce :(

Of course, I really don't believe that. Dead is dead. When you die, you don't go to hell, heaven, or anything in between, you just go six feet under. Or not, depending how you die... kinda unrelated, but what pissed me off as a kid was the fact that my minister/priest/whatever the hell he was, used to always scare us with "if you don't go to church everyday, you go to hell." much like the episode of south park (if anyone knows which one i'm talking about.)

My take on this issue is that the Bible shouldn't be taken literally. It's a collection of nice ideas and good values, inspired or not, I don't believe that God asked Noah to bring 2 of everything on a big ass boat (but I do love the sound "Ark"), but there was a flood in the region and things got passed down via oral tradition.

EXACTLY! It is physically impossible! According to the story Noah built an ark big enough to support two creatures of every type, including millions of bug species, and thousands of birds, not to mention the mammals such as elephants and rhinos. To build an ark that big, Noah, by himself, would need five lifetimes. Not to mention that the Ark would be so big, that it would take up every last resource on earth to build, and the remains would have to be somewhere. And let's not forget that there is another 40 days on a boat, all of which it rains so hard a flood happens. (okay, the flood thing could happen, it IS god) but the ark has animals for 40 days. what would stop them from eating each other, or accidentally killing each other, and how can you prove that they would mate? even if they did mate, 40 days isn't enough to drag out a third of each kind.

So yeah. It's fake.

[DarkFire168]

I don't want to be torn to shreds because I don't believe in a god I can't pronounce :(

Of course, I really don't believe that. Dead is dead. When you die, you don't go to hell, heaven, or anything in between, you just go six feet under. Or not, depending how you die... kinda unrelated, but what pissed me off as a kid was the fact that my minister/priest/whatever the hell he was, used to always scare us with "if you don't go to church everyday, you go to hell." much like the episode of south park (if anyone knows which one i'm talking about.)



That's what I think, I'm just pointing out that Pascals Wager is retarded. And that episode. Was. Hil. Ar. I. Ous.

[Arctic_Slicer]

Animosity towards Christians? no... Perhaps to the church as a whole though. I think the Christian religion has done far more harm over the course of history than it has done good. I view the cross in the same light that I view a swashtika.

Well technically the swastika is a cross and is actually seen in churches that were built before WWII.

Also most scholars are pretty certain that the story of Noah's Arc is based on the "Epic of Gilgamesh" as there are many, many similarities. Considering the "Epic of Gilgamesh" originated in that region and was a fairly well known story at the time it is likely that the Jewish priests added the story to earlier versions of the bible as their are lots of good teachings found in that story.

[Mastiker]

Well technically the swastika is a cross and is actually seen in churches that were built before WWII.

Also most scholars are pretty certain that the story of Noah's Arc is based on the "Epic of Gilgamesh" as there are many, many similarities. Considering the "Epic of Gilgamesh" originated in that region and was a fairly well known story at the time it is likely that the Jewish priests added the story to earlier versions of the bible as their are lots of good teachings found in that story.


The story of Noah's Ark is repeated in I think seven religions :D

[DarkFire168]

Well technically the swastika is a cross and is actually seen in churches that were built before WWII.

Also most scholars are pretty certain that the story of Noah's Arc is based on the "Epic of Gilgamesh" as there are many, many similarities. Considering the "Epic of Gilgamesh" originated in that region and was a fairly well known story at the time it is likely that the Jewish priests added the story to earlier versions of the bible as their are lots of good teachings found in that story.

Actually the swastika comes from a little known buddhist symbol, Hitler simply flipped it around. It isn't a piece of Christian paraphonalia.

Aslo, the second paragraph = 100% true.

[Iseult]

Well, I must say I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you; and what's more, appalled at the tawdry ignorance being disseminated and accepted here.

Has none of you heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

http://www.venganza.org/

Learn, heathens. Bow ye down to His Noodly Appendage!

In seriousness, I'd be okay with having a disclaimer read to students regarding the theory of evolution.... as long as a similar disclaimer were read for every other scientific and mathematical theory.

Since I don't see that happening, I am forced to conclude that there is a religious agenda being pushed in American schools, which is clearly against the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. I'm sure you all agree.

[LJustus]

Actually the swastika comes from a little known buddhist symbol, Hitler simply flipped it around. It isn't a piece of Christian paraphonalia.

Aslo, the second paragraph = 100% true.
Hindu, actually.

There have been flood stories throughout many religions over many centuries. The Epic of Gilgamesh was the first, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all of the others came from it. Tales of floods, most as a deity's retribution for the sins of man, were even told in many Native American tribes, as well as Mayan and Aztec societies.

My personal favorite is Deucalion and Pyrrha.

[DarkFire168]

Hindu, actually.

There have been flood stories throughout many religions over many centuries. The Epic of Gilgamesh was the first, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all of the others came from it. Tales of floods, most as a deity's retribution for the sins of man, were even told in many Native American tribes, as well as Mayan and Aztec societies.

My personal favorite is Deucalion and Pyrrha.


Ah, Hindu *Kicks himself for forgetting that too*.

And the reason for all the flood stories is because floods were destructive and unstoppable back then so they represented great power and godliness. And since the gods were attributed to being the reason behind everything bad or good back then, they considered it punishment for failing to pay proper sacrament to their gods.

Not only that but the epic of Gilgamesh the moral censure is almost non existent: the gods want to wipe out humanity because they find them tiresome. Aint' that a bitch?

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Hope you know that 'Christian' stands for Christ-like.

Apperently true belivers of Jesus and god and have the the faith and loving and worship of god will do meraculous things that even Jesus couldn't do.

Of course give me one person who has a faith like that and I will crap gold bars.

[DarkFire168]

With all do respect many people who claim to be "Christians" don't seem to know who he is. Hell, most Christians don't seem to know that there was no man named "Christ". Christ is a title not a name. The so called savior was a man known as Jesus of Nazereth not Jesus Christ. This easily confirmed and well documented fact seems to unknown to the bulk of Christian society.


1st, I thought "Christ" was a title that was decided upon by the Council of Nacea (or whatever it was called). Ya know the council that decided Jesus was a "divine being".

2nd, none of them seem to realize that their most revered icon is the cross, which was an instrument of torture and death by the Romans.

[rush]

I get tired of hearing "BUT HE DIED ON THE CROSS!!!1"

Yes, he did. But so did many others. Crucifixion was a popular form of public execution back in Roman times. It just irks me when people refer to Jesus as if he was the only person in history to be crucified.

[Mastiker]

I get tired of hearing "BUT HE DIED ON THE CROSS!!!1"

Yes, he did. But so did many others. Crucifixion was a popular form of public execution back in Roman times. It just irks me when people refer to Jesus as if he was the only person in history to be crucified.

Yeah didn't they kill a few other people on the same day as Jesus? He didn't have very special death, as everyone seems to make it out as.

How depressing is it, that the holy sign of the lord just happens to be the thing his son died on, as well as countless others? Religion is weird... I hated, as a kid, looking up at that statue of the dead Jesus. And by golly, just thinking about getting nails in my hands and feet makes my skin irk.

[Kuhool]

sorry if this was already posted, but did anyone mention what Darwin's theory actually is?

Darwin was observing, not creating a new reason as to why we are here. Could it not be possible that being Divinely put here, that is just how we as a species react to that situation? Does it absolutely have to mean that's how we were created, instead of how we react?

Don't quote me on this too strongly, it's just a loose opinion I haven't thought out entirely.

and just thinking about floods, is there not a chance that there actually WAS a global flood, and the story of it had been told in different ways? but because this ACTUALLY HAPPENED, similarties will be found.

[ChronoSphere]

I believe that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world, and that I, a Pastafarian, have been touched by His Noodly Appendage, and therefore as a follower of his Noodly Goodness, must support the teaching of our True(tm) story of creation - it involves a hooker factory and a beer volcano.

Witness his power:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg

[Kustom]

In seriousness, I'd be okay with having a disclaimer read to students regarding the theory of evolution.... as long as a similar disclaimer were read for every other scientific and mathematical theory.


I have another idea, which I'm sure we can all agree on. We'll accept the disclaimer in science class, in exchange for priests of every monotheist religion reading a similar disclaimer before prayer:

"We are about to pray God, who according to our religion created the Earth and man. However, you should be aware that many people don't actually believe this because of the evolution theory, the only established scientific theory with considerable evidence that contends that humans evolved from other mammals. If you want to know more about it, I encourage you to read "the evolution of species" from Charles Darwin. Please think carefully about what you choose to believe. Amen."

Now we're talking. I wanna hear you religious people tell me what you think.

[Arctic_Slicer]

Actually the swastika comes from a little known buddhist symbol, Hitler simply flipped it around. It isn't a piece of Christian paraphonalia.

Aslo, the second paragraph = 100% true.

I actually been in a Cathedral built before 1930 that had showings of the swastika so I would wager it was a Christian sysbol I guess it could also be a Buddist symbol as it is a pretty generic symbol not all that unique really.

Also, yes there are many flood stories all around the world but most scholars believe that the story of "Noah's Ark" originated from the "Epic of Gilgamesh" based on location and other important similarities not found in other flood legends.

[DarkFire168]

Global flood = highly improbable -> impossible. A global flood would wipe out all life (except aquatic based life), so how would anyone survive long enough to record what had happened? Where would the myriad of life that now populates our planet have come from? Another couple million years of evolution all over again? There would be a fossil record of our evolutionary reset button being hit.

And no one said he wasn't explaining how we reacted to our existence. They're just saying that creationism is inherently incorrect as it stands. We have the proof, just certain people refuse to acknowledge it. To say that evolution is simply the development of life after the initial spark of life by some divine being would probably be more correct than just plain old "We were made this way, that's how it is, if you disagree I will burn you alive."

[Arctic_Slicer]

Global flood = highly improbable -> impossible. A global flood would wipe out all life (except aquatic based life), so how would anyone survive long enough to record what had happened? Where would the myriad of life that now populates our planet have come from? Another couple million years of evolution all over again? There would be a fossil record of our evolutionary reset button being hit.

And no one said he wasn't explaining how we reacted to our existence. They're just saying that creationism is inherently incorrect as it stands. We have the proof, just certain people refuse to acknowledge it. To say that evolution is simply the development of life after the initial spark of life by some divine being would probably be more correct than just plain old "We were made this way, that's how it is, if you disagree I will burn you alive."

Exactly, however the "Epic of Gilgamesh" was a local flood and was likely exagerated for the bible version. Considering that the story originated in what is now Iraq a major flood was very likely. Most myths tend to be exagerated as their purpose is to be an extraordinary story.

[DarkFire168]

I actually been in a Cathedral built before 1930 that had showings of the swastika so I would wager it was a Christian sysbol I guess it could also be a Buddist symbol as it is a pretty generic symbol not all that unique really.

Also, yes there are many flood stories all around the world but most scholars believe that the story of "Noah's Ark" originated from the "Epic of Gilgamesh" based on location and other important similarities not found in other flood legends.

Yeah but the Epic of Gilgamesh isn't specifically about the flood. The flood myth is an older story that has a derivative of itself placed in the Epic of Gilgamesh. And it is widely accepted that Noah's Ark is based off of the Epic. I believe that too, I'm just pointing out that flood stories are prevalent in theological history due to their disastourous effects. However not all floods are viewed as disasters. The banks of the Nile flooding in Egypt, for insance, were often thought of as a renewal of life for the world by the gods and were welcomed as a point of order, because the flooding brought precious silt to the rivers surrounding embankments, thus allowing the propagation of vegetation.

[DarkFire168]

Exactly, however the "Epic of Gilgamesh" was a local flood and was likely exagerated for the bible version. Considering that the story originated in what is now Iraq a major flood was very likely. Most myths tend to be exagerated as their purpose is to be an extraordinary story.

I know that, I was pointing it out to the guy who said that a world flood was possible. The Epic of Gilgamesh however was exaggerated in all three versions, the original, the derivative in the Epic and the version in the bible, not just the bible version.

[ChronoSphere]

I think most folks are taking advantage of the term 'theory' as used in scientific jargon. The way science uses the term 'theory' is vastly different from the common usage of the word.

From Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)

In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them. Scientific theories are formulated, developed, and evaluated according to the scientific method.

And

In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.

Theory is not simply conjecture, a scientific theory has actually had experiementation and research done against it, and it has withstood those tests. The creationists who are pushing ID and disregarding Natural Selection as simply a 'theory' don't even understand what the term actually means.

You can't even call the 'Intelligent Design' concept a science - to be science it has to be falsifiable - and you can never disprove Intelligent Design, making it a faith-based idea, not a science - hence it has no place in public school.

[Trump]

If we still lived in bibilical times the story could have been about New Orleans too. I mean city full of moral corruption, hurricaine causes massive flooding that lasted for over a week. Who is to say that isn't what happened in some form or another?

The bible is NOT a detailed history of the people of the middle east. It is a collection of stories and laws based off of that history designed to help people understand God, nothing more. It even contradicts itself as it goes but it doesn't really matter. The intent is still the same regardless of the historical accuracy.

[DarkFire168]

Also, god = dog backwards.... just like santa is an acronym for satan. Conspiracy? Yes, I do believe so.

[Kass]

^And this relates to the topic how?

[DarkFire168]

It doesn't. but I thought they would be fun things to point out.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I get tired of hearing "BUT HE DIED ON THE CROSS!!!1"

Yes, he did. But so did many others. Crucifixion was a popular form of public execution back in Roman times. It just irks me when people refer to Jesus as if he was the only person in history to be crucified.

Well you didn't finish the sentence. "BUT HE DIED ON TEH CROSS FOR YOU!"

Yes, Jesus wasn't the only one who died on the cross. Let's not forget that his own people denied him, then he was whipped with a cat of nine tails that has some sort of sharp glass at the end (both sides), then he had a crown of thorns rammed on his head, then the forced him (an already weak man from the beatings) to carry this huge cross up a large hill, and finally they nailed him to it bleeding and naked. After that they gave him a sponge with viniger on it when he said "I thirst".

Yeah, he wasn't the only one, but he went through so much more than just being nailed to a cross.

All he wanted to do was bring about a little peace and happiness to everyone.
Someone should have an idea for peace and happiness without having to get nailed to anything.

[stillbornsinger]

Yeah, he wasn't the only one, but he went through so much more than just being nailed to a cross.

yep, and all of that so much more was pretty darn common in those days. There were other perceived criminals who received much worse.

[DarkFire168]

How about being quartered alive? or death by exposure on a mountain side? or being staked down (with spikes through your wrists and ankles) spread eagle and smeared with sugary by products (such as honeys) and eaten alive by fire ants? Those all sound more unpleasent than being forced to drink vinegar I mean come on, eaten alive by freaking ants.

How do you know that he died for you? Because a book says so? Well I have a book that says he died because some big freaking spikes were put through his wrists and ankles, he was stabbed in the side and left to die of starvation and thirst, nailed to a big wooden cross. Those seem more logical than, he died to save you.

[Iseult]

How do you know that he died for you? Because a book says so? Well I have a book that says he died because some big freaking spikes were put through his wrists and ankles, he was stabbed in the side and left to die of starvation and thirst, nailed to a big wooden cross. Those seem more logical than, he died to save you.

Just for the record, you described HOW but left the WHY untouched. Method != motive.

[Kuhool]

there's few Christian people on here, which probably still angers you Atheists, so I don't wanna preach to deaf ears, but to those who are, don't try to convert anyone over the internet. it's definately good if you defend it, because if people are attacking something you believe in/love, you have every right to go back at them. but do nothing more than defend what they've said, because most people can't understand what we believe in is. i've seen it first hand, in person, it's just closed minded.

[rush]

Let's not forget that his own people denied him, then he was whipped with a cat of nine tails that has some sort of sharp glass at the end (both sides), then they forced him (an already weak man from the beatings) to carry this huge cross up a large hill, and finally they nailed him to it bleeding and naked.

Wasn't this common practice for those who were crucified, though?

[stillbornsinger]

there's few Christian people on here, which probably still angers you Atheists, so I don't wanna preach to deaf ears, but to those who are, don't try to convert anyone over the internet. it's definately good if you defend it, because if people are attacking something you believe in/love, you have every right to go back at them. but do nothing more than defend what they've said, because most people can't understand what we believe in is. i've seen it first hand, in person, it's just closed minded.

It in no way angers me (an atheist) that there are Christians here, everyone is welcome to their own opinion. I actually kind of wish there were a few more so we could have a decent DISCUSSION on the topic.

And for the record I understand fully what the Christian's beliefs are and what they a based on. I grew up in a Christian family, and went to church often when I was younger. I've been in discussions several times where I knew the Bible better than the Christians I was debating with. Many other atheist came from similar situations.

There is closed minded people on both sides of the table.

[DarkFire168]

I'm not offended or angered that there are christians on here. but I wish they had a more intelligent defense than "It's my faith!" or "the Bible says so!"

[Arctic_Slicer]

It in no way angers me (an atheist) that there are Christians here, everyone is welcome to their own opinion. I actually kind of wish there were a few more so we could have a decent DISCUSSION on the topic.

And for the record I understand fully what the Christian's beliefs are and what they a based on. I grew up in a Christian family, and went to church often when I was younger. I've been in discussions several times where I knew the Bible better than the Christians I was debating with. Many other atheist came from similar situations.

There is closed minded people on both sides of the table.

That's actually why alot of people leave the Christian faith. They actually do the unthinkable and read the bible and realize that there is alot of crap in there. This also why William Tynsdale was branded a heretic and burned for translating the bible to English. The old Latin/Greek was keep a rule in part as it ensured the vast majority of their followers could not read the bible and therefor question it. After the bible was translated to English and then later published as the Geneva bible by King Henry VIII did that change. We not only had the begining of the protestant reformation but we also had the deist movement begin.

[Kustom]

but do nothing more than defend what they've said, because most people can't understand what we believe in is. i've seen it first hand, in person, it's just closed minded.

Nope, I think a lot of atheist understand what you believe, we just don't understand why...
But thank you for calling us closed minded... Did you think we had stopped reading?

Ok, I'm not really mad at you or anything, I'm sure you didn't mean it, but if the discussion was getting ugly because of a Christian/Atheist flame war (I didn't feel that though), posts like that only would add fuel to the fire...

When I discuss matters with Christian people, I start from the assumption that they are no stupider than I am and are capable of understanding my point of view, unless they give me good reasons to think otherwise. It'd be nice if you returned us the favor. For some reasons, many religious people are persuaded that Atheists are ignorant about religion or never took time to think about it. In many cases, it is quite the opposite. Many Atheists gave a lot of thinking to religion and made a conscious choice not to believe. In my case, both the bible and the Qran are sitting on my shelf, and I read them cover to cover. I debated with priests for hours about what faith was and the various objections that can be made to the existence of an all-powerful benevolent deity.
I know you disagree with us, but at least pretend to be interested in what we have to say...

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

yep, and all of that so much more was pretty darn common in those days. There were other perceived criminals who received much worse.

Oh so what you are really saying is that it was common and you don't even understand Christians because they worship a guy who went through something common? According to the Bible he died for us and that's enough for me even if they decided to kill him without crucifiction.

Even one of his Apostles went through worse. Paul was stoned, beaten, and then crucified UPSIDE DOWN!

How it was done doesn't change what he did.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Wasn't this common practice for those who were crucified, though?

Actually Pontious Pilot didn't really want to kill the guy so he had him beaten and was going to set him free, but people still wanted Jesus crucified. I don't think he wanted to be responsible for killing Jesus so basically he said his hand were clean of this. Doesn't matter of course cause his soldiers crucified him.

[stillbornsinger]

Oh so what you are really saying is that it was common and you don't even understand Christians because they worship a guy who went through something common? According to the Bible he died for us and that's enough for me even if they decided to kill him without crucifiction.

Even one of his Apostles went through worse. Paul was stoned, beaten, and then crucified UPSIDE DOWN!

How it was done doesn't change what he did.

No, what I am really saying is that you need to go back and read my previous posts again. Specifically #105

Yes, the Bible does make the claim that a man named Jesus died for mankind's sins. But several other "holy" books make similar claims as well. What I do not understand is how the Christian Bible can be considered any more right than any other holy book.

I would prefer you did not make assumptions about my understanding of the Christian religion in the future.

[Kustom]

How it was done doesn't change what he did.

Err... But you're the one who brought that up (how it was done) :confused:.

You should have started there from the beginning. Even if Jesus was run over by a car, if he allowed himself to be to save human kind, that's brave enought for me. Leave the gory details to Mel Gibson...

[Kuhool]

alright, i've only been in one real life, not even debate, just sort of exchanging words with someone who turned away from Christianity, and boy were they pissed off. they started pulling out all sort of bull shit, they were telling me what i believed in, so i had a bad experience.

all i did was give them straight facts, they asked me one thing, and i didn't use opinion, i just said straight facts.

but i don't think atheism will ever persuade me, it is said "if sinners entice you, do not consent", it's a testing of my faith. hell it's weakened, but i still have it.

any kind of debate will never change the opposers opinion it seems, a debate is only effective with a neutral party to decide between the two, but there is no neutrality in these types of debates it seems.

you'd never see John Kerry win a debate and then George Bush go "Oh man, you're right, I think I'll convert to a Democrat."

it's the same with Atheists and Theists.

ok so lastly, sorry for all the small paragraph/sentences, and sorry for maybe quoting something a little far out there for some of you, but religion is based on faith, not works. for those who do not believe in faith, they attack the works, and debate the faith.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I think all arguments should start with "According to what I believe..." just so people don't get so angry.

[Godon]

You ask us if we "believe in [our] Deity". If it is ours we obviously believe in it though don't we? I am a Seventhday-Adventist myself. I have my short comings but I am christian nonetheless.

[Jynx_lucky_j]

Yay the thread lives! I was worried it was going to die off there for a moment. First of all anyone that is getting worked up should just take a deep breath and calm down. You will NEVER change anyones oppinion on the internet. I have yet to see anyboby say at the end of a debate, "you know when you put it that way i think you are right." Kuhool put it very well himself, noboy here is going to convert anyone else.

As christains we are supposed to share the gosiple of Jesus Chirst. I've never seen the passage in the bible that says "thou shalt force others to follow your beliefs," could someone point it out to me please? I seemed to have missed it. I don't know...maybe i got a differant bible than everyone else? I've only had a part in converting one person, and they were looking for spirital guidance already. All i did was share what i believed. You won't convert people unless they want to be converted, and that goes for atheism, christains, and every other religion as well.

Jesus had a message of tolerance. I've never seen the passage that he condemed other people, or ordered people to follow him. The people that followed him did so willingly. Did he ever talk down about the people that weren't following him? Because when some people talk about following the teachings of jesus, while demonstrating their intolorance, i cant help but shake my head in disappointment that his messages are lost on these people.

I have to disagree with stillbornsinger about wanting more christian in this discussion. It would be nice to have a balance, but as I mentioned earlier I dont belive most "christians" really know what they are talking about. They are either too zealot in their beliefs and refuse to listen to anything out side of their little world or don't know enough about their own religion or the subject of religion vs science to express their oppinion properly. It's odd though because most aethist i've personally met are the opposet because its by doing those same things that they came to thier conclusion. I think the ones we have already are for the most part intellegant and understanding and reasonible. I'd hate for some zelot to come in here and ruin our image for us. It is all to easy to make even a well thoughtout and educated belief fall apart by having some idiot mouthing off in you support. For instance if 1 or 2 aethiest supporters came here spouting off stuff like "God is teh suck" or "Christians are blind sheep" then we would be be having a very differance conversation (well you guys would be, i wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole).

I would like to request that anyone who is not willing to discuss their beliefs objectively, and/or is not open to the beliefs of others please do not post here. You wont change anyone here. Our only perpose here should be to exchange views with each other. Not to try and change anyone else to our beliefs.

[DarkFire168]

So far the only people on here that I've seen blindly insulting anyone are Kuhol and number17.

[Kustom]

Let's not throw fuel on the fire shall we... I didn't feel insulted at all in this thread, except collectively as an ignorant Atheist, but I'm willing to forget it so we can have a discussion... I've heard many an Atheist insult believers on forums too, so let's just turn the other cheek!

Kuhol, I complettely agree with you, religion is ultimately a matter of faith, otherwise, er, it makes no sense. But you have to understand that if you are living together with people who have a different or no faith, you can't resort to faith-based arguments to influence their views on evolution, gay-marriage or what not. I don't believe the bible is an accurate reflecion of God's message, so you can quote as many parts of it as you want and say: "See? Jesus was the son of God, he gave his life for us!" or "He turned water into wine!", it won't convince me of anything. As far as I'm concerned, there is enought historical evidence that a person not entirely unlike Jesus existed in his time (he is thought to be a blend of 2 or 3 different characters, though), and that he was crucified, but nothing supports the idea than he was divine in essence, so for me he's just an ancient philosopher whose views I can relate to. Ideas like tolerance or non-violence are universal, this is the kind of things we can discuss together. Typically, creationism isn't...

[Jynx_lucky_j]

The purpose of this second post is because i also wanted to touch on the OP again with the subject on Evolution vs Intellegent Design vs Creationism, and didn't won't it to overlooked for the rest of my post. Thus a seprate post ^^ For the record Intellegent Design get just as much opposition from Creationist as Evolutionist. Its really more of a blending of the two than anything.

I really don't think that ID should be taught in schools. At least not until it comes up with some concret evedance that can stand up to scrutiny by the scientific community. Currently its based mostly on the holes in evolution. However, if they are going to teach evolution they should teach all of evolution not just the supporting evediance.

They should also teach things like... In its current form it breaks the Law of Biogenesis which upholds that all life must come from preceding life, and that of its kind. Life does not come from nonliving matter. Nor do living creature give birth to differant types of living creatures. This is currently a scientific law, and thus takes pesedance over the therory of evolution. So two of its therorys are in violation of current laws. That life resulted by a chance combination of dead chemicals. And the therory that eplains away the absence of missing links by stating that evolution occationally takes leaps forward.

Speaking of the lack of missing links, there should'nt be just one missing link but millions of missing links for every species. There just are not enough for form a solid evolutionary line. Most of the Ape->Man missing links have been debunked as mistakes or out right fakes. Why does all of a species evolved even though they share the same region? Modern man has been found to originate in africa, why didn't the other apes in the same region elvove along with them? Shouldn't every creature be highly intellegent? I can't think of a single species that wouldn't benefit from being smarter.

Honestly, I do belive in some form of evolution. I don't know if it works exactly as they say it does or not. But I'm aware that it also has major supporting evidance as well. I just think if you want to teach something like this, you shouldn't just teach the parts you like.

The problem is that evolutionist attack people that don't belive in evolution as much as religious figures attack thoughs that do. In collages there are professors that deliberately fail students that they learn believe things beside evolution, regardless of their grades. Professors lose there jobs if they even think they may be teaching a theory besides evolution in their class. Acredit scientists are cast out of the community if they start supporting nonevolutionary ideas. Its hard to get good information against evolution that isn't heavily religion based for these reasons. Both sides want to eleminate the other, and i can't picture them stopping any time soon.

[Arctic_Slicer]

I think all arguments should start with "According to what I believe..." just so people don't get so angry.

The moment you say "according to what I believe" your argument is effectively discredited. You should never use the word "I" in an arugment or an essay.

There is no problem with the teaching of intelligent design in schools the problem comes from the other part of the argument of wanting to put it in the science classes where it does not belong. It could however have place in any kind of philosophy or theology class as intelligent design is alot more faith and speculation based.

Creationism will never be considered to be taught in schools as it makes very broad claims about how the Universe is only 6000 years old and other farfetched accusations that are made while ignoring the vast ammounts of evidence that proves otherwise. Creationists will even go as far as to say that the speed of light and radiometric decay rates change exponentially over time proving their claim of the 6000 year old universe, thankfully there are plenty of other methods of proving these claims wrong. One of these is dendrochronology. By counting the rings on a tree we can determine the age of the tree as well as what environmental conditions were like at the time each ring was made. With dendrochronology it has been found that there are trees that are very old on this planet some older than 10,000 years which in itself disproves the Earth being only 6000 years old. Of course dendrochronology is not always counting tree rings it can also extend to other things such as counting layers of ice which can be counted as far back as 500,000 years ago and also rock layers which goes into the millions. This is more than enough evidence to disprove the 6000 year old universe theory that creationist swear by and because of this it will never be in any school sanctioned by the government. This is also why they push "intelligent design" and not creationism.

[DarkFire168]

I don't know what "holes" you speak of, exvept the missing link, please, enlighten me.

[Jynx_lucky_j]

Law - A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.
Theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Hypothosis - A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
provided by dictionary.com

So we all know that Evolution is a theory, right? That, by defenition, means evolution is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena that has been repeatedly tested or has been widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. However, evolution is not a law. And therefor it has not been observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met.

So whats the hold up? What is keeping these lazy scientist form making this a law and smashing this whole controvesy into the ground? Well II'll be completely honest and tell you all I am not a scientist. So i don't know all the details for every problem that evolution faces. How ever in the Encyclopedia of Evolution an evolutionist himself point out the problems for me.

Evolution, Mysteries of
Major Unsolved Problems
Charles Darwin candidly admitted there were “great difficulties” and unsolved puzzles in our study of evolution. Science teachers often make the grave mistake of trying to gloss over these areas of ignorance, attempting to provide an answer for everything. Creationists rightly puncture such pretensions to knowledge, but then go on to scoff at evolutionary theory for what it hasn’t solved, as if that disproves all of modern biological knowledge.

The areas discussed below pose the most profound challenges to evolutionary science. Despite years of research and discussion (and, in some cases, promising directions), there are still no answers.

1. Origin of Life. How did living matter originate out of nonliving matter? Was it a process that happened once or many times? Can it still happen today under natural or artificial conditions? Did it evolve out of the kind of growth and replication processes we see in crystals or on an entirely different basis?
2. Origin of Sex. Why is sexuality so widespread in nature? How did this maleness and femaleness arise? If it is necessary to maintain genetic variability, why can many microorganisms do without it? How can one account for such phenomena as parthenogenesis: frog eggs, for instance, can produce tadpoles if they are pricked by pins or stimulated by electric current, without having been fertilized by male sperm.
3. Origin of Language. How did human speech originate? We see no examples of primitive languages on Earth today; all mankind’s languages are evolved and complex. Can the answer be sought in the structure of the brain, experiments on teaching apes, animal communication systems or is there no way to ever find out?
4. Origin of Phyla. What is the evolutionary relationship between existing phyla and those of the past? There is still no agreement on how many there are today, how many we know from the fossil past and which may have come out of which. Transitional forms between phyla are almost unknown.
5. Cause of Mass Extinctions. Asteroids are currently in vogue, but far from proven as a cause of world-wide extinctions. And though punctuated equilibrium theory helps account for the so-called sudden appearance of new groups, and long persistence of others, it has raised many new questions about stability and extinction of species.
6. Relationship between DNA and Pheno*type. Can small steady changes (micromuta*tions) account for evolution, or must there be periodic larger jumps (macromutations)? Is DNA a complete blueprint for the individual, or is it subject to various influences and constraints in its expression? Are there any circumstances under which environment or behavior can work “backwards,” influencing changes in DNA?
7. How Much Can Natural Selection Explain? Darwin never claimed natural selection is the only mechanism of evolution. Although he considered it a major explanation, he continued to search for others, and the search continues.

To dismiss these wide-open questions with pseudo-answers just to fill in unanswerable gaps is intellectually dishonest and no service to science. When asked about the origin of life, for instance, some say it “probably came about when a spark of lightening hit a ‘primeval soup’ of organic chemicals.” That research direction has been pursued for years but never proven; its mindless repetition only stifles students’ creativity in coming up with new approaches to science’s greatest mystery.

Does that mean we must abandon everything we have learned about evolution because of the great questions still unanswered? How much better to admit and identify areas of profound ignorance and challenge the next generation to explore them.

Essentially this guy is saying what i have been this whole time, don't bother hide the problems with evolution. Expess them openly in the classrooms after all its these same children that are going to have to try to figure out how to fill these holes in the future. Or maybe they will discover that evolution was completely false and develope a machine to measure god, who knows...

The problem is that besides Evolution what other option is there for an aethist? It is few and far between that you find and individual that doesnt belive in elolution that is not religous. And it is because of that that many anti-evolution messages reek with religion. But you can find a few anti-elolutionist based on science instead of religion. Then again how much do any of us really know about intellegent design? What exactly it states? I'm willing to bet that most of us only know what we've seen in the media. I know i haven't studied it yet, although the whole topic does seem kind of interesting. Maybe i'll see if i can find any books on it, there may be more to it all than we think. I would hate to be one to make a concrete uniformed decision.

The following sources are of course biased against evolution (as if evolution wasnt biased against the other ideas as well :rolleyes: ), but they do do a great job of expanding upon the areas that evolution is lacking in. Far better than i could do with my meager scientific background. these are what i turned up with just about an hour of seaching. I'm sure i could find more with even more depth but at this point in time my internet access is only when i'm at work, and while im here they kinda expect me to do work...what the hell is up with that? Designed Universe (http://designeduniverse.com) Science Against Evolution (www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/)

I would just like to restate that i personally do belive in evlolution in some form or another. Though the theory is still being worked on and has changed and evolved many times in the past and will likely continue to in the future. though I try to keep an open mind and if the right evedance comed along, i may change my veiws.


And just for the fun of it i would like to add i little story that i like ^^
Sir Isaac Newton's Solar System Story
That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton?s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.

Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My! What an exquisite thing this is!? he exclaimed. "Who made it?? Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody."

Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!? the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is."

Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"

[DarkFire168]

2. Origin of Sex. Why is sexuality so widespread in nature? How did this maleness and femaleness arise? If it is necessary to maintain genetic variability, why can many microorganisms do without it? How can one account for such phenomena as parthenogenesis: frog eggs, for instance, can produce tadpoles if they are pricked by pins or stimulated by electric current, without having been fertilized by male sperm.
3. Origin of Language. How did human speech originate? We see no examples of primitive languages on Earth today; all mankind’s languages are evolved and complex. Can the answer be sought in the structure of the brain, experiments on teaching apes, animal communication systems or is there no way to ever find out?

Well.... 2 is simple enough. Maybe sex's are necessary to maintain genetic variability on a larger scale, but as you get smaller it doesn't matter as much... I can't explain this well enough. It sounds good in my head but I can't seem to find the right way to phrase it if that doesn't cover it.

3, what does that have to do with Evolution though? Wouldn't that fall under a more anthropamorphic heading?

[Invictus]

Newton makes a good point. The very complexity of the universe would seem to indicate design.

This is, perhaps, one of the most damning criticisms of macroevolutionary theory. There is no observable example of chaos giving way to order unless acted upon by an outside force. Macroevolutionary theory requires us to accept that random chaos gave way to simple and orderly life, and that simple life gives way to more complex life. This is a pattern observed nowhere in nature; in fact, the tendency is for all things to tend toward a more primal and disorderly state. We observe that all life eventually gives way to a state of unliving; we have never observed the unliving giving way to life.

[Jynx_lucky_j]

For information on why sex is such a big issue i would like to direct you to the following articles. http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v7i5f.htm http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v8i5f.htm

As for speach im not entirely sure, I'll do some research tomarrow night if no one beats me too it. My shift is just about over otherwise i'd do it now.

[Roxie]

Actually Pontious Pilot didn't really want to kill the guy so he had him beaten and was going to set him free, but people still wanted Jesus crucified. I don't think he wanted to be responsible for killing Jesus so basically he said his hand were clean of this. Doesn't matter of course cause his soldiers crucified him.
This is more legend than hard fact...read the wikipedia link I've provided.

[Godon]

Well a simple example is the flagellum of small one-cell organisms. It would be impossible for the flagellum to evolve because of the basis of evolution. If useless parts are not kept that is. To appear through evolution the flagellum would have to go through many millions of years of uselessness before it could be put to use.

Also, about the age of the Earth, under extreme situations things such as that can be altered. I know that carbon dating is off for this reason. You can take something and age it twenty-thousand years in just a few days under moderate conditions. A condition such as the flood, mayhaps, could produce a much larger number. Also I think it is quite possible that there were rocks and things on this planet long before there was ever any "intelligent design". It says in the bible that the planet was formless not there was nothing there.