believe that god created humans in his likeness 10,000 years ago. I don't think the poll asked if the earth was round or not.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx

I knock republicans for thier political views, life views, and the racist "jokes" they are so fond of making. I do not however, knock anybody's beliefs.

Here is a more fair take on the issue.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

I follow the Theistic evolution view.
Now when you say that 60% of republicans still think Iraq masterminded 9/11 or somesuch, i'l be glad to back you up.

sexiest_hero wrote:I knock republicans for thier political views, life views, and the racist "jokes" they are so fond of making. I do not however, knock anybody's beliefs.

Here is a more fair take on the issue.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

I follow the Theistic evolution view.
Now when you say that 60% of republicans still think Iraq masterminded 9/11 or somesuch, i'l be glad to back you up.

Sometimes tolerance is not the answer.

Well Republicans who believe in some form of evolution are about the national average, however the proportion who believe in no evolution is quite a bit higher than the norm.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/11/darwin-200/

sexiest_hero wrote:I knock republicans for thier political views, life views, and the racist "jokes" they are so fond of making. I do not however, knock anybody's beliefs.

But what happens when the religious views determine their political views? If you knock their political views shouldn't you knock the source of the views?

olympia wrote:

But what happens when the religious views determine their political views? If you knock their political views shouldn't you knock the source of the views?

Political views are usually much easier to change than religious ones, and religious belief tends to be a non-issue in social interaction.

religion just leads to trouble, and guidlines in which to live by.
im happy enough without any religion.

olympia wrote:(60% of Republicans) believe that God created humans in his likeness 10,000 years ago. I don't think the poll asked if the earth was round or not.

I wonder if that is a higher or lower percentage than the proportion Democrats who believe that the aformentioned God is the guy who has just been elected president?

Orlanth wrote:

olympia wrote:(60% of Republicans) believe that God created humans in his likeness 10,000 years ago. I don't think the poll asked if the earth was round or not.

I wonder if that is a higher or lower percentage than the proportion Democrats who believe that the aformentioned God is the guy who has just been elected president?

I don't really believe anyone thinks Barack Obama is some kind of God like figure. That is some serious heresy in most religions.

http://www.venganza.org/

May his noodly goodness watch over us all.

This get's filed under "obvious yet meaningless." Republicans tend to be both more religious and more traditional. Throw in the tendency toward conformity, a respect for authority, and a suspicion of experts, and it's actually surprising how close the gap is between the parties.

It's meaningless because it doesn't really say anything about how people act or behave or believe in their day to day life. Probably not.

I stay very moderate on this opinion, because I think that any attempt to vilify or castigate religious folks tends to turn into a complete denial of the usefulness of theology or religion. I'm a strong supporter of science, and of separation of church and state, but I no more approve of mocking and trivializing religion than I do of ignoring scientific facts. I use science where science is useful, and religion where religion is useful.

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon among countries the West. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:

97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

Tallies (more or less) with my experiences over here, even amongst the few christian people I know I don't know anyone who takes the Bible as a literal word for word truth. Had some quite enlightening conversations with a fair few senior clergy this summer and with the exception of those from somewhat..... disorderly..African nations they were all in the "much of the Bible is a metaphor" camp. Even the septics which surprised me from my online experiences.

Here's the results of a study that was performed recently... I thought the UK would do worse but then we do have Darwin on the £10 bank note. The question was if you think the theory of evolution is true or not.

The latest bit of support for evolution is the discovery in Pakistan of fossils of whale-like creatures which are intermediate between modern whales and non-sea-going mammals.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/First-Whales-Spawned-on-Dry-land-103648.shtml

Wow, I'm so pleased I just payed to be a DCM so you people could attack religion.

In the immortal words of Ron White. "Well feth you."

I'm going to go away for awhile.

Very suspicious of such Polls myself. Sure, they might have asked 1,000 Republicans to get their figure...

But where was the poll conducted? If they went to the middle of the Bible Belt, then, like....duh. You're in an area globally noted for Religious Conservatism.

IF they asked the Republicans in nominally Democrat areas....well..slightly more surprising.

It's like when polls claim '85% of 12-15 year olds smoke Cannabis hourly!' Yes, because when you ask a yoof whether they do something vaguely naughty, and something typically seen as 'cool'.... they are going to tell the truth, and not just try to prove how grown up they are are they? Oh no. Not at all.

One mistake the majority of posters and pollsters make is lumping all fundamentalist or devout christians under the republican party. The two are not synonymous. One of the core constituencies of the democratic party are african americans, many of whom are very devout christians themselves, and their views on evolution are in line with christians from the republican party. Also another strong demographic in the democratic party is immigrants from central and south america. The latinos are by and large extremely devout, and extremely catholic, as such they're views would likely be in line with christians in the republican party. The below link is from a gallup poll taken in 1991. Since peoples religious beliefs typically do not change much over time this poll would likel;y still be relavent today.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

My point is that belief in creation vs evolution is not tied to political party, it is tied to religion. What the original pollster and poster seemed to want is to create a logical fallacy that republicans are all ignorant people who believe in religion over science, by ignoring that democrats can be religious also. And remember a poll is only as good as its source. The same question if worded differently can get widely different answers.

Case in point if most people were asked:
Do you think it is moral to kill babies? With no other qualifying statements most people would say no. And anti abortion people would trumpet the results saying most people do not support abortion.

However if you asked:
Do you think it is morall justified to terminate a pregnancy if the pregnancy would result in the mother's death?
Most people would say the it is morally justified, and the pro abortion crowd would trumpet the results stating that most people support abortion.

Use you heads people and take every poll with a huge grain of salt.

You are right that poll questions can be very biasing of the results.

In this case the poll was conducted by Gallup, a reputable company.

The methodology and question are shown -- they are not biaising. The evolution question replies cross-correlate with religious observance and political affiliation. (Correlation does not indicate causation, of course.) The same poll has been conducted annually since 1982.

So I would say your contention that the purpose of the poll is to show that Republicans are ignorant is incorrect.

NEver mind....

I really should double read things before posting.

Sorry folks!

"In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls."

The above is a direct quote from the article discussing the poll. Gallup admits the results might be biased. The major question poll reports often neglect to answer, is who paid to have the poll done. That will also have a major impact on the results. Gallup is one of many polling organizations. They are paid to conduct a poll. If the customer does not like the results, they will in the future go to another polling company. Therefore they will skew the results to what the people paying for the poll want.

There is definitive evidence supporting this view. The gold standard for scientific validity is the double blind test. That is where the people administering the test as well as the test subjects are unaware of the desired result. It is used extensively in the pharmaceutical industry. The company will send the sample to an independent organization to do the test. They will not tell the testing company what pills have the active, and which have the placebo. Therefore the people administering the test cannot bias the results by ltting the people taking the meds know which is the placebo and which is the active.

They do this because there is a lot of evidence showing that when someone is administering a test or conducting the poll, the results are skewed towards what the desired result is.

So, why would someone want to pay money to have this poll taken, unless the goal was to discredit or demean the party the question was targeting?

If I understand you correctly, you suppose that the poll has been got up by opponents of the Republican party, to label them as stupid because most of them believe in creationism or God-guided evolution.

Note that over 80% of Democrats and Independents hold the same beliefs.

Surely the poll sponsor only manages to label them as a bit less stupid than the Republicans? It hardly seems like a winning political gambit.

More grist for the mill. Enjoy.

Where did the 80% number come from?

And the only point that I am trying to make is that all polls are motivated by something. People should take all of them with a huge dose of skepticism. Polls as currently used by the media, corporations, and politicians are twofold. One is to gauge public opinion, and the other is to influence public opinion. They gauge public opinion, in order to influence public opinion. So if a poll comes out that paints a group in a negative light, always ask why and how that poll was conducted.

sexiest_hero wrote:I knock republicans for thier political views, life views, and the racist "jokes" they are so fond of making. I do not however, knock anybody's beliefs.

Unfortunately it isn't that simple. There's faith and personal truth and all that stuff, and there's claims that the Earth was made 6,000 years ago. The survey clearly distinguished the two with different options. A lot of people chose the answer that doesn't just demonstrate personal faith, but a wilful rejection of modern science. It is relevant and it isn't good enough to shrug and say 'personal beliefs'.

dogma wrote:Political views are usually much easier to change than religious ones, and religious belief tends to be a non-issue in social interaction.

If there is a significant majority willing to deny the science of the age of the Earth, that goes beyond personal belief. That's a significant amount of ignorance and something that needs to be addressed.

Frazzled wrote:Wow, I'm so pleased I just payed to be a DCM so you people could attack religion.

In the immortal words of Ron White. "Well feth you."

I'm going to go away for awhile.

Hang on, so what are we allowed to say on this forum?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Very suspicious of such Polls myself. Sure, they might have asked 1,000 Republicans to get their figure...

But where was the poll conducted? If they went to the middle of the Bible Belt, then, like....duh. You're in an area globally noted for Religious Conservatism.

Gallup are a well established organisation who have been running this poll for a long time. This isn't some fly-by-night mob reporting these figures.

Mango wrote:Case in point if most people were asked:
Do you think it is moral to kill babies? With no other qualifying statements most people would say no. And anti abortion people would trumpet the results saying most people do not support abortion.

However if you asked:
Do you think it is morall justified to terminate a pregnancy if the pregnancy would result in the mother's death?
Most people would say the it is morally justified, and the pro abortion crowd would trumpet the results stating that most people support abortion.

Use you heads people and take every poll with a huge grain of salt.

Uh, no. What you appear to be asking is for people to assume every poll is dubious, which will stop people using a valuable source of data. I think the better solution is for people to follow up on any survey that produces an interesting result, look into the methodolgy and the questions asked. Find out if a survey result is to be trusted.

Mango wrote:So, why would someone want to pay money to have this poll taken, unless the goal was to discredit or demean the party the question was targeting?

The poll has been taken regularly since the early 80s. I'm not sure but I doubt it's a paid for survey, polling companies will do a lot of polling for their own sake, things of general interest that get widely reported will increase their reputation and increase the business of their paid for polling (normally lots more boring stuff like 'what word comes to mind when you think Hyundai?').

oh ffs. Plonius is right, none of this means anything. Belief in creationism doesn't make them stupid it just means they're stubborn.

And for the record, religion itself isn't the cause of all the problems in the world as a lot of atheists and others who's belief abide closely to the laws of science make out. It's the people who feel it's right to criticise others who's beliefs differ from their own who cause the problems. Much like atheists, non creationists, a number of posters in this thread, telling creationists they're stupid, ignorant bla bla bla.

Fail!

Mango wrote:Where did the 80% number come from?

And the only point that I am trying to make is that all polls are motivated by something. People should take all of them with a huge dose of skepticism. Polls as currently used by the media, corporations, and politicians are twofold. One is to gauge public opinion, and the other is to influence public opinion. They gauge public opinion, in order to influence public opinion. So if a poll comes out that paints a group in a negative light, always ask why and how that poll was conducted.

Well, yeah, look into the polling company and the company's methodology, but don't just assume it's dubious without actually looking into the company and the methodology. This survey is from a reputable company, and they've shown their methodology and it doesn't look manipulated at all.

whatwhat wrote:oh ffs. Plonius is right, none of this means anything. Belief in creationism doesn't make them stupid it just means they're stubborn.

There is nothing wrong with believing in God. There is a lot wrong with stating all information found by the Empirical method is wrong and I know the secret truth and the world is really 10,000 years old. It's the difference between a personal view on an unknowable question and ignorance.

And for the record, religion itself isn't the cause of all the problems in the world as a lot of atheists and others who's belief abide closely to the laws of science make out. It's the people who feel it's right to criticise others who's beliefs differ from their own who cause the problems. Much like atheists, non creationists, a number of posters in this thread, telling creationists they're stupid, ignorant bla bla bla.

Yeah, religion isn't the source of the world's ills. It's a large collection of beliefs and of organisations, each with long histories full of great highs and great lows.

People who are opinionated also aren't the source of the world's ills. It may be obnoxious for someone on the internet to declare faith or atheism to be utterly wrong, but it's still just some guy on the internet, he isn't sending people to gulags or anything.

But again, there's a difference between religious belief and a denial of the scientific record. People can believe what they want about God's guiding hand and any possible purpose for putting us here. But when you take that next step and deny the scientific record, it's a big deal and needs to be treated as such.

Fail!

Indeed.

Denial of the scientific record is hardly reserved to religions.

Look at the current issue in the UK of the MMR vaccine, and also the issue about classification of Ecstasy and Cannabis. Completely separate and non-religious groups in both cases are going totally against the scientific knowledge.

I didn't say "one guy on the internet" is causing all the problems did I, it's his self rightous atitude which a lot of other people have which does. And you fit perfectly into that category.

If this thread is going to devolve into 'people who harbour beliefs which contradict with scientific fact have no say in politics, are ignorant, stupid etc. etc.' which is basicly what it was from the off. imo it deserves to be locked to be honest regardless of who is wrong or right, it's just plane inflammatory to anyone who is of the opposite belief. (and i'm not saying I am either)

sebster wrote:

Fail!

Indeed.

Agreed.

Kilkrazy wrote:Denial of the scientific record is hardly reserved to religions.

Look at the current issue in the UK of the MMR vaccine, and also the issue about classification of Ecstasy and Cannabis. Completely separate and non-religious groups in both cases are going totally against the scientific knowledge.

Absolutely, ignorance should be addressed everywhere.

The scientific method is perfectly valid, and I am not denying it. I am a scientist. The scientific method is how I make my living. (I work for a pharmaceutical company).

Faith is defined as believing something without proof.

However the vast majority of people treat science as a faith. For example, do most people believe in atoms? Yes. Of the people that do believe in atoms, what percentage do you think have done an experiment proving that atoms exist? Very very few, yet people still believe in atoms. They accept ON FAITH, the view of the scientists that have performed the experiments, but have not personally found the information themselves.

Most people will assume that because so many people believe in atoms, that enough people have done the research, that thier existence must be true.

The only major difference, is that with training, access to the necessary equipment, a person could replicate the experiment. However, they do not, which again puts their view as a FAITH. Faith in the knowledge and ability and reason of someone else, Faith that the existence of the evidence exists, but faith nonetheless.

sebster wrote:
If there is a significant majority willing to deny the science of the age of the Earth, that goes beyond personal belief. That's a significant amount of ignorance and something that needs to be addressed.

I agree that it does. However, going after the entire belief system, which if often how such matters are approached, accomplishes nothing. Someone who legitimately believes that the world is 6,000 years old will not be convinced by any statement to the contrary. Its also unlikely that any amount of science is going to convince them, as they clearly do not accept it as capable of producing valid evidence. The most likely way of inducing change is through evangelical action by the more liberal denominations. Unfortunately, very few of those denominations believe in evangelism.

whatwhat wrote:I didn't say "one guy on the internet" is causing all the problems did I, it's his self rightous atitude which a lot of other people have which does. And you fit perfectly into that category.

If this thread is going to devolve into 'people who harbour beliefs which contradict with scientific fact have no say in politics, are ignorant, stupid etc. etc.' which is basicly what it was from the off. imo it deserves to be locked to be honest regardless of who is wrong or right, it's just plane inflammatory to anyone who is of the opposite belief. (and i'm not saying I am either)

I've always been happy to tell people when they're wrong. Never made any secret of that. I don't think I'm self righteous, but I accept opinions will vary. But I will factcheck, and I will admit when I'm wrong.

I've read the arguments of people who claim the scientific establishment is wrong and the history of the Earth is really just like the Bible says. The better ones are just confused, the bad ones are disingenuous.

People can have any opinion they want, but they should know the facts around their argument and be honest in their opinions. Once a Young Earther is capable of such they'll get due credit.

Faith is defined as belief in something for which there is no proof.

Everyone in the developed world is taught scientific thinking from primary school by simple experiments such as growing beans without light or water.

Obviously everyone can't go on to perform all the experiments ever done, so there comes a point after which people make the rational decision that the proof provided by science is of an acceptable standard without personally experiencing it, by extrapolating from the science they already know.

Mango wrote:The scientific method is perfectly valid, and I am not denying it. I am a scientist. The scientific method is how I make my living. (I work for a pharmaceutical company).

Faith is defined as believing something without proof.

However the vast majority of people treat science as a faith. For example, do most people believe in atoms? Yes. Of the people that do believe in atoms, what percentage do you think have done an experiment proving that atoms exist? Very very few, yet people still believe in atoms. They accept ON FAITH, the view of the scientists that have performed the experiments, but have not personally found the information themselves.

I don't have to see an experiment done personally to know that it was performed. People don't have to personally be part of the scientific community to follow the debate.

Most people will assume that because so many people believe in atoms, that enough people have done the research, that thier existence must be true.

That isn't faith, or anything like faith. It's an assement of the most likely of three things;
That there are atoms
That scientists have made one or more collosal blunders that no-one has figured out
That the whole atom thing is a giant scientific conspiracy undertaken by millions of scientist over a large period of time to trick the population into... something.

It doesn't much of a leap to consider the first option the most likely. The second option is always a possibility, although at this point not so much with atoms.

The only major difference, is that with training, access to the necessary equipment, a person could replicate the experiment. However, they do not, which again puts their view as a FAITH. Faith in the knowledge and ability and reason of someone else, Faith that the existence of the evidence exists, but faith nonetheless.

Actually, I don't think you're giving proper credit to faith. It's a lot more meaningful than believing scientists know something.


And none of that has anything to do with rejecting science and saying the Earth is a few thousand years old. So I'll say it again, personal faith is great. Rejecting science to accept a literal interpretation of the Bible is bad.

dogma wrote:I agree that it does. However, going after the entire belief system, which if often how such matters are approached, accomplishes nothing. Someone who legitimately believes that the world is 6,000 years old will not be convinced by any statement to the contrary. Its also unlikely that any amount of science is going to convince them, as they clearly do not accept it as capable of producing valid evidence. The most likely way of inducing change is through evangelical action by the more liberal denominations. Unfortunately, very few of those denominations believe in evangelism.

I don't think you need to go after the whole belief system. I think you can convince people of faith that their faith is not dependent on a yooung Earth. That they can accept the Earth is very ancient and that God is the creator.

I have no problem with belief, and no desire to convince anyone not to believe. But if people take a very narrow understanding of faith that stops them from finding out about the world, that's ignorance and ignorance is always bad.

I am not sure it is the job of scientists to go around proselytizing against religion.

Richard Dawkins is so vehemently anti-religion that he comes across as a bit of a swivel-eyed frother. Everything about religion isn't that bad.

I think science should confine itself to issues of public science policy, such as homeopathic medicine, the MMR vaccine, power generation, and so on.

sebster wrote:I've always been happy to tell people when they're wrong. Never made any secret of that. I don't think I'm self righteous, but I accept opinions will vary.

If the first part of that paragraph was written "I've always been happy to tell people when I think they're wrong. " I might have believed the second part.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Richard Dawkins is so vehemently anti-religion that he comes across as a bit of a swivel-eyed frother. Everything about religion isn't that bad.

It also doesn't help that he isn't a terribly gifted philosopher. The way he uses Theism is incorrect, and his understanding of the word God is simply woeful. When you argue philosophically you are bound to the minimal definitions of all terms in question unless you offer additional substantiation. He doesn't do this. He simply says 'Only these nutty people are really religious, the rest are lying.'

Non of these polls are interesting as all they really show is that America is more literal in their religion than other European countries (And Japan for some reason). It would be far more useful a poll if Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Egypt etc etc was there too.

I think you'd find that the idea that the middle east is full of Rampant Muslims is false. The vast majority of them, have much less literal views of religion than Righty Americans

I guess I just don't see the problem with clinging to some sort of creationism. I think it's incorrect, but I fail to see how believing in a young earth hurts oneself or others or society as a whole. What parts of daily life are affected by an understanding of geology, paleontology, or cosmology?

Now, clearly belief in the historical truth of the bible more strongly implies a belief in the ethical truth of the bible than vice versa. For a lot of liberals and social progressives (including myself), the reliance on the bible for creating the law of the land is frightening, but I think believing in adam and eve is just fine.

It's also hard to say that you support faith but then point out parts of a persons faith and say "that's wrong and you're wrong to believe that." It's a complete misunderstanding of the way faith works to even attempt that.

Kilkrazy wrote:Faith is defined as belief in something for which there is no proof.

Everyone in the developed world is taught scientific thinking from primary school by simple experiments such as growing beans without light or water.

Obviously everyone can't go on to perform all the experiments ever done, so there comes a point after which people make the rational decision that the proof provided by science is of an acceptable standard without personally experiencing it, by extrapolating from the science they already know.

Using your very own argument. Have any events described in the Bible actually occurred that has historical records backing them up? When corroborating evidence is found in Egyptian writings and Hittite writings and Babylonian writings to say that certain events occurred, and later archeological evidence surfaces again corroborating the bible, enough in the bible is true, then extrapolating from what they believe from what they know without personally experiencing it. Or put it another way. People see trees. People see plants. People see people. They believe they exist because they have seen proof. The Bible say god created all of them. They extrapolate and believe everything in the bible. I reiterate. For most people, Science is a FAITH.

For centuries people believed the Sun was the source of life on this planet. We now know that without the sun, life could not exist on this planet. We have a lot better explanation of why that is the case, but the end result is that people still believe that the sun is responsible for the continued existence of life on this planet. Faith is Faith. Faith in god is faith. Faith in science is faith.

With that being said. I am an agnostic as well as a scientist. Why, because you cannot prove that God does not exist anymore than you can prove that a God does exist. THAT is based on the scientific method.

I have been reminded that this topic is potentially highly inflammatory and liable to lead to trolling and flames.

So far everyone has behaved well -- good work -- let's try to keep it that way.

Mango wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Faith is defined as belief in something for which there is no proof.

Everyone in the developed world is taught scientific thinking from primary school by simple experiments such as growing beans without light or water.

Obviously everyone can't go on to perform all the experiments ever done, so there comes a point after which people make the rational decision that the proof provided by science is of an acceptable standard without personally experiencing it, by extrapolating from the science they already know.

Using your very own argument. Have any events described in the Bible actually occurred that has historical records backing them up? When corroborating evidence is found in Egyptian writings and Hittite writings and Babylonian writings to say that certain events occurred, and later archeological evidence surfaces again corroborating the bible, enough in the bible is true, then extrapolating from what they believe from what they know without personally experiencing it. Or put it another way. People see trees. People see plants. People see people. They believe they exist because they have seen proof. The Bible say god created all of them. They extrapolate and believe everything in the bible. I reiterate. For most people, Science is a FAITH.

For centuries people believed the Sun was the source of life on this planet. We now know that without the sun, life could not exist on this planet. We have a lot better explanation of why that is the case, but the end result is that people still believe that the sun is responsible for the continued existence of life on this planet. Faith is Faith. Faith in god is faith. Faith in science is faith.

With that being said. I am an agnostic as well as a scientist. Why, because you cannot prove that God does not exist anymore than you can prove that a God does exist. THAT is based on the scientific method.

The bits in the Bible which have been proved from records and archaeology have been proved by science.

While most people believe in science by faith, they are probably the same people who believe in acupuncture.

It remains the fact that scientific experiments (a) logically progress from proven existing knowledge and (b) are repeatable.

Science makes nuclear weapons and internet porn.

Before religion man rarely lived past 30, and lived in small family groups.

Though that's not to say we haven't developed beyond religion (the next step is internet porn).

@ Gitzbitah, I'm also a Pastafarian, all praise His Noodliness.

Ahtman wrote:More grist for the mill. Enjoy.

Now this is interesting reading. Some of the more surprising results include only 50% of Americans belive homosexuality should be accepted; and 74% believe in Heaven, but only 59% belive in Hell, seems there's some optimists in the US!

Polonius wrote:I guess I just don't see the problem with clinging to some sort of creationism. I think it's incorrect, but I fail to see how believing in a young earth hurts oneself or others or society as a whole.

How about school curriculum? Geology class would be a lot different if it were taught by Young Earthers.

Greebynog wrote:@ Gitzbitah, I'm also a Pastafarian, all praise His Noodliness.

Ahtman wrote:More grist for the mill. Enjoy.

Now this is interesting reading. Some of the more surprising results include only 50% of Americans belive homosexuality should be accepted; and 74% believe in Heaven, but only 59% belive in Hell, seems there's some optimists in the US!

Yes that is very interesting. It says something like 31% of people claim to have received a "specific" answer from god about a question "this week"!! It doesn't say whether the answer was "yes", "no," or "maybe/not yet."

olympia wrote:

Polonius wrote:I guess I just don't see the problem with clinging to some sort of creationism. I think it's incorrect, but I fail to see how believing in a young earth hurts oneself or others or society as a whole.

How about school curriculum? Geology class would be a lot different if it were taught by Young Earthers.

Why would they be teaching geology? I doubt any university would hire a young earther geology prof, and at the lower levels how much geology is actually taught? How much is taught that actually requires knowledge of scientific cosmology? I"m not being trite, I honestly think that there would be little impact under a worst case scenario in which science curriculum were utterly based on religious doctrine. I think the worst we would have is a bunch of Petro-geologists looking for oil in the places god likes to hide oil, instead of in the geological layers where experience has shown them more likely to form. Same thing for different reasons.

That said, it's most likely not going to happen. You can't teach any specific religion in public schools, and the evidence for an older earth is far more convincing than the evidence for evolution, which in itself is pretty convincing.

I'm not saying we allow these people to dictate public policy, I'm just saying I don't' see what the problem is with people believing that.

Greebynog wrote:@ Gitzbitah, I'm also a Pastafarian, all praise His Noodliness.

Ahtman wrote:More grist for the mill. Enjoy.

Now this is interesting reading. Some of the more surprising results include only 50% of Americans belive homosexuality should be accepted; and 74% believe in Heaven, but only 59% belive in Hell, seems there's some optimists in the US!

I've actually had interesting debates with evangelicals on the issue. I'm Catholic, and I don't believe in a hell as such. The original bargain was if you followed Jesus, you got eternal life instead of death. Hell isn't death, it's eternal torment. Hell, if anything, is defined as total separation from the divine, which to me sounds a lot like oblivion, and not Dante's Inferno.

Polonius wrote:

olympia wrote:

Polonius wrote:I guess I just don't see the problem with clinging to some sort of creationism. I think it's incorrect, but I fail to see how believing in a young earth hurts oneself or others or society as a whole.

How about school curriculum? Geology class would be a lot different if it were taught by Young Earthers.

Why would they be teaching geology? I doubt any university would hire a young earther geology prof, and at the lower levels how much geology is actually taught? How much is taught that actually requires knowledge of scientific cosmology? I"m not being trite, I honestly think that there would be little impact under a worst case scenario in which science curriculum were utterly based on religious doctrine.

This was tried in Europe during a period that is known as the "Dark Ages."

olympia wrote:

Polonius wrote:

olympia wrote:

Polonius wrote:I guess I just don't see the problem with clinging to some sort of creationism. I think it's incorrect, but I fail to see how believing in a young earth hurts oneself or others or society as a whole.

How about school curriculum? Geology class would be a lot different if it were taught by Young Earthers.

Why would they be teaching geology? I doubt any university would hire a young earther geology prof, and at the lower levels how much geology is actually taught? How much is taught that actually requires knowledge of scientific cosmology? I"m not being trite, I honestly think that there would be little impact under a worst case scenario in which science curriculum were utterly based on religious doctrine.

This was tried in Europe during a period that is known as the "Dark Ages."

And society didn't crumble, did it? people still mined minerals, planted crops, and went about their merry lives. Actually, it wasn't really tried during the Dark Ages (a term few, if any historians still use, btw), as there was almost no formal schooling outside of the religious groups. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests technology and agricultural savvy increased after the fall of rome, not regressed.

So again, I ask, what is the problem?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Mango wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Faith is defined as belief in something for which there is no proof.

Everyone in the developed world is taught scientific thinking from primary school by simple experiments such as growing beans without light or water.

Obviously everyone can't go on to perform all the experiments ever done, so there comes a point after which people make the rational decision that the proof provided by science is of an acceptable standard without personally experiencing it, by extrapolating from the science they already know.

Using your very own argument. Have any events described in the Bible actually occurred that has historical records backing them up? When corroborating evidence is found in Egyptian writings and Hittite writings and Babylonian writings to say that certain events occurred, and later archeological evidence surfaces again corroborating the bible, enough in the bible is true, then extrapolating from what they believe from what they know without personally experiencing it. Or put it another way. People see trees. People see plants. People see people. They believe they exist because they have seen proof. The Bible say god created all of them. They extrapolate and believe everything in the bible. I reiterate. For most people, Science is a FAITH.

For centuries people believed the Sun was the source of life on this planet. We now know that without the sun, life could not exist on this planet. We have a lot better explanation of why that is the case, but the end result is that people still believe that the sun is responsible for the continued existence of life on this planet. Faith is Faith. Faith in god is faith. Faith in science is faith.

With that being said. I am an agnostic as well as a scientist. Why, because you cannot prove that God does not exist anymore than you can prove that a God does exist. THAT is based on the scientific method.

The bits in the Bible which have been proved from records and archaeology have been proved by science.

While most people believe in science by faith, they are probably the same people who believe in acupuncture.

It remains the fact that scientific experiments (a) logically progress from proven existing knowledge and (b) are repeatable.

I am not disputing that it was science that had proven bits of the Bible. I am not disputing that scientific experiments logically progress and are repeatable. I am saying that Science for most people IS a faith, faith that everything the scientist say is true because the Scientists must have done experiments. But scientists have been and will be fallible. I am reminded of the ridicule that sailors until very recently were subjugated to when they said that they believed in Giant Squid because they had seen them. Reputable scientists called them ignorant superstitious fools for believing in Giant Squid. Then some Japanese fisherman caught a giant squid. Belief in something without proof is belief in something without proof. A lot of my colleagues are atheists. They believe god does not exist because there is no proof that god does. Yet they cannot prove that god does not exist. These are rational people with Phd's in Biochemsitry, chemistry and Biology. Yet they cannot prove that god does not exist. They however have FAITH that does god does not exist. Why? Because they believe in something without proof.



.

Polonius wrote:

olympia wrote:

Polonius wrote:

olympia wrote:

Polonius wrote:I guess I just don't see the problem with clinging to some sort of creationism. I think it's incorrect, but I fail to see how believing in a young earth hurts oneself or others or society as a whole.

How about school curriculum? Geology class would be a lot different if it were taught by Young Earthers.

Why would they be teaching geology? I doubt any university would hire a young earther geology prof, and at the lower levels how much geology is actually taught? How much is taught that actually requires knowledge of scientific cosmology? I"m not being trite, I honestly think that there would be little impact under a worst case scenario in which science curriculum were utterly based on religious doctrine.

This was tried in Europe during a period that is known as the "Dark Ages."

And society didn't crumble, did it? people still mined minerals, planted crops, and went about their merry lives. Actually, it wasn't really tried during the Dark Ages (a term few, if any historians still use, btw), as there was almost no formal schooling outside of the religious groups. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests technology and agricultural savvy increased after the fall of rome, not regressed.

So again, I ask, what is the problem?

I was flippant because I wasn't taking you seriously. This has been studied to death. The decline of science and a concomitant loss of competitive economic and military power in Catholic countries following the persecution of Galileo is well known. I'll PM some references.

I also seem to recall that several research in the U.S. left for Europe and Asia after Bush II put the religiously-inspired limitations on stem cell research.

olympia wrote:

I was flippant because I wasn't taking you seriously. This has been studied to death. The decline of science and a concomitant loss of competitive economic and military power in Catholic countries following the persecution of Galileo is well known. I'll PM some references.

And you're missing the point. This isn't a discussion about if religion should be allowed to push out science, it's a question of if science should be able to push out religion. Feel free to PM me your references, but I'm well aware that societies that devalue science to promote tradition or religion suffer.

It's highly unlikely that the legal situation in the US will change to allow for theocratic public schools, so my example was a bit extreme, but the roadblocks to scientific inquiry at the beginning of the scientific revolution go beyond fundamentalist readings of the bible. The writings of Aristotle were considered virtually relgious canon, and anything that disagreed with that was going to offend. At the same time the reformation had made the Church feel vulnerable, and so it was working overtime to return itself to power. The very idea of the scientific method was new and controversial.

I don't' think it'd be a good thing to teach creationism or young earth geology in schools. I just don't think it would result in a collapse in our scientific power. There would be too many areas that choose to stick to secular education, or schools run by religions that encourage scientific inquiry (like jesuit schools, ironically, as well as jewish, anglican, and most mainline protestant). And that's assuming school districts getting taken over.

On the issue of "is it bad for society that people simply disbelief in evolution," I just can't really think of good reason to be afraid of it. I'm more afraid of Christians that hate others (in clear violation of basically the whole point of Christianity), or of anybody that chooses to use religion and dogma to control others, regardless of the faith and purpose. A persons actions can hurt me, their words can offend me, but their beliefs can't affect me.

olympia wrote:I also seem to recall that several research in the U.S. left for Europe and Asia after Bush II put the religiously-inspired limitations on stem cell research.

That's true. That's a problem, and one that we'll recover from, I'm hoping. I'm not sure that was so much religiously based as it was simply stupid though.

There was a reason I've voted against evangelical candidates in every race in which they appear: I don't agree with their politics. That said, I'm not sure how people believing in creationism led to a stem cell research restriction.

On a lighter note, I like the pastafarian view of things. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!! I also am beginning to agree with some of the other posts that this thread should probably be moved to PM or stopped. I know I have been one of the guilty party in keeping the thread going. I apologize. I am willing to continue on the PM side of things however.

olympia wrote:
I was flippant because I wasn't taking you seriously. This has been studied to death. The decline of science and a concomitant loss of competitive economic and military power in Catholic countries following the persecution of Galileo is well known. I'll PM some references.

Correlation does not imply causation. In those days science was a matter of patronage, and with the revival of Ottoman expansionist designs very few of the wealthy were willing to indulge the whims of scientists in studying the universe. When it comes to spending money in the course of holding on to property, or spending money to learn, the property will always win out.

Most Europeans are atheists. It is a by product of socialism... Schism.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Most Europeans are atheists. It is a by product of socialism... Schism.

G

No, most europeans are non practicing christians. That's not the same thing. Atheism is the stern belief that no god whatsoever exists, if you had to put european majority into a category they would be Agnositc.

what exactly is a non practici g Christian?

G

whatwhat wrote:
No, most europeans are non practicing christians. That's not the same thing. Atheism is the stern belief that no god whatsoever exists, if you had to put european majority into a category they would be Agnositc.

No, Atheism is the lack of belief in God. You are an Atheist if you do not believe in something called a God. It doesn't mean that you believe God does not exist, only that you do not know of such a thing.

@ Green blow Fly...They are the people who think Moses put 2 of each animal on the ark


I look at it like this. In the beginning dirt created itself from nothing

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
No, most europeans are non practicing christians. That's not the same thing. Atheism is the stern belief that no god whatsoever exists, if you had to put european majority into a category they would be Agnositc.

No, Atheism is the lack of belief in God. You are an Atheist if you do not believe in something called a God. It doesn't mean that you believe God does not exist, only that you do not know of such a thing.

Oh well I'm imensely sorry for that mr perfect.

My point still stands.

Green Blow Fly wrote:what exactly is a non practici g Christian?

G

Someone who is declared christian by their census but isn't an orthodox member or doesn't necessarily believe in all/any elements of Christianity.

That was Noah and he was a son of Satan.
G

whatwhat wrote:
Oh well I'm imensely sorry for that mr perfect.

My point still stands.

There is big difference between saying "I do not believe in God", and "I believe there is no God."

Your point doesn't stand, because a non-practicing Christian could be an atheist Christian. Someone who does not believe in God, but does believe in Christianity.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Most Europeans are atheists. It is a by product of socialism... Schism.

G

According to the EEC's own figures, it is 18%.

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf

However that's not directly relevant to the topic of belief in evolution, which wasn't covered in the survey.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Oh well I'm imensely sorry for that mr perfect.

My point still stands.

There is big difference between saying "I do not believe in God", and "I believe there is no God."

Your point doesn't stand, because a non-practicing Christian could be an atheist Christian. Someone who does not believe in God, but does believe in Christianity.

ffs whatever grudge you seem to bear with me just drop it, it doesn't go unoticed you nitpicking at a lot of the things I have posted since you disagreed with me over the Israel issue. "Someone who does not believe in God, but does believe in Christianity" your claiming someone can believe in christianity, a monotheistic religion, and not believe in god/believe there is no god? Are you that stupid? (thats a rhetorical question btw, you have no obligation in answering)

whatwhat wrote:
ffs whatever grudge you seem to bear with me just drop it, it doesn't go unoticed you nitpicking at a lot of the things I have posted since you disagreed with me over the Israel issue. "Someone who does not believe in God, but does believe in Christianity" your claiming someone can believe in christianity, a monotheistic religion, and not believe in god? Are you that stupid.

I don't have any grudge against you at all. You just say a lot of ridiculous things in an unnecessarily confrontational way. If you're going to be assertive take the time to be correct.

And yes, you can believe in a monotheistic religion without believing in God. You can say "I believe that God exists, but I do not believe in him." You can also make the statement "I do not believe in God, but I believe in Christian teachings." The literal definition of the word God is 'supreme being'. To be considered a Christian all you have to do is accept the premise that Jesus Christ was the son of God. This means you must accept that Jesus Christ was a close relation of a supreme being. That does not require that the supreme being actually exist, only that Jesus serve as a theoretical reflection of it.

dogma wrote:I don't have any grudge against you at all. You just say a lot of ridiculous things in an unnecessarily confrontational way. If you're going to be assertive take the time to be correct.

And you don't?

as for the second half of your post: Atheism=the rejection of theism...i.e. panthesim, polytheism, monothesim (chrisitanity). Now how can you be an athesit and also be a Christian, if the definiton of the word Atheist is to reject what christianity is. Take a step back and apreciate how ignorant you are comming across right now. making up crap to back up your point (a point made purely to get at me as some personal vendetta) when you have no idea what your talking about.

To be a Christian is very specific. Their God said the world was created in seven days. I have no problem with that. To me a stance as one who does not believe In a greater being is a cop out. Who is to say that there is not something greater than you or I. It all comes down to faith. I don't need a heaven to make me feel more secure. I can handle a concept that there are things that exist that are beyond my realm of understanding. We all know fear. I am okay with that.

G

whatwhat wrote:
as for the second half of your post: Atheism=the rejection of theism...i.e. panthesim, polytheism, monothesim (chrisitanity).

Atheism is the negation of Theism, not necessarily the rejection of it. It breaks down like this:

Do you believe in God?

Yes = Theist
Not yes = Atheist

whatwhat wrote:
Now how can you be an athesit and also be a Christian, if the definiton of the word Atheist is to reject what christianity is.

Because you can answer 'I don't know' to the question of 'Do you believe in God', and still be considered an Atheist. I can be a Christian who is not certain of my belief in God, but still certain that Christianity is a valuable thing. Being an Atheist is not the same thing as being a Secularist.

whatwhat wrote:
Take a step back and apreciate how ignorant you are comming across right now. making up crap to back up your point (a point made purely to get at me as some personal vendetta) when you have no idea what your talking about.

What am I making up? I'm literally taking definitions out of the dictionary, and explaining to you what they mean.

Also, I have no idea why you feel this is a personal vendetta. You made a comment based on an incorrect understanding of a term. I corrected you. There is nothing personal in this.

whatwhat wrote:If the first part of that paragraph was written "I've always been happy to tell people when I think they're wrong. " I might have believed the second part.

If it's my opinion, I'll say I think they're wrong. If someone has said something that is completely factually wrong, I'll say that. Funnily enough there are facts in the world, and people get them wrong all the time. But all that has nothing to do with anything, and I'm left wondering why you've left the rest of the discussion alone...

Polonius wrote:I guess I just don't see the problem with clinging to some sort of creationism. I think it's incorrect, but I fail to see how believing in a young earth hurts oneself or others or society as a whole. What parts of daily life are affected by an understanding of geology, paleontology, or cosmology?

It means you have a culture of people rejecting established science and scientific authorities. I think it leads to things like the MMR debacle.

It's also hard to say that you support faith but then point out parts of a persons faith and say "that's wrong and you're wrong to believe that." It's a complete misunderstanding of the way faith works to even attempt that.

Except faith isn't about rejecting what is known, or at least shouldn't have to be. It is about building a sophisticated world view that has a place for what we know about the world in terms of science, religion and philosophy. Simply declaring one book to be absolutely literally true regardless of everything else shortchanges science and religion.

Mango wrote:Using your very own argument. Have any events described in the Bible actually occurred that has historical records backing them up? When corroborating evidence is found in Egyptian writings and Hittite writings and Babylonian writings to say that certain events occurred, and later archeological evidence surfaces again corroborating the bible, enough in the bible is true, then extrapolating from what they believe from what they know without personally experiencing it. Or put it another way. People see trees. People see plants. People see people. They believe they exist because they have seen proof. The Bible say god created all of them. They extrapolate and believe everything in the bible. I reiterate. For most people, Science is a FAITH.

The bible was written in the context of the world events of the time. Nothing in there shows knowledge beyond what was known to the authors of the book. Which isn't exactly shocking.

I have no idea what people seeing trees has to do with science as faith, I really don't.

With that being said. I am an agnostic as well as a scientist. Why, because you cannot prove that God does not exist anymore than you can prove that a God does exist. THAT is based on the scientific method.

Absolutely, science says nothing about the existance of God. God is by his nature beyond the natural, and therefore beyond science. I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. People are talking about religious beliefs that deny the scientific record, which is a very different thing.

Envy89 wrote:


I look at it like this. In the beginning dirt created itself from nothing

And I look at it like this: in the beginning God had already been there forever

Green Blow Fly wrote: To me a stance as one who does not believe In a greater being is a cop out.

What ?

Greebynog wrote:And I look at it like this: in the beginning God had already been there forever

Not quite... it is more along the lines of "in the beginning, there was a non physical entity that was / is not bound by the laws of time."

Not trying to get into an argument over which religion is correct hear. I just think that for someone to not believe in any religion is silly. All things physical are bound by the laws of time. All things physical have some point at which they were created.... and we all know that matter cannot create itself....

Typeline wrote:Sometimes tolerance is not the answer.

I am so gonna quote that out of context on every occasion. Oh, and sig it.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:I guess I just don't see the problem with clinging to some sort of creationism. I think it's incorrect, but I fail to see how believing in a young earth hurts oneself or others or society as a whole. What parts of daily life are affected by an understanding of geology, paleontology, or cosmology?

It means you have a culture of people rejecting established science and scientific authorities. I think it leads to things like the MMR debacle.

That's a bit of slippery slope argument. The MMR debacle was a legal strategy (that failed) that had nothing to do with faith or religion. Again, and I hate to keep repeating myself, I fully oppose people using their faith to set public policy. All I'm saying is that I stand for a persons right to have whatever beliefs they want to in their own mind. I don't want it taught in schools, I don't want it used as evidence in the courtroom, and I dont' want it used to elect people. But if it makes a person feel better to think that god created his ancestors 6000 years ago and simply made everything look older to test his faith, well, I say let him. He's not going to be a visiting lecturer at the Geology Society. Yes, in a scientific forum, you can tell him that he's wrong. If he brings his faith based ideas into a factual arena, he deserves what he gets.

Freedom of though, or freedom of Conscious (the underlying right behind the rights of Speech, worship, etc.) is like any other right: there are going to be some abuses, and some crappy results. But I defend billy bob's right to think that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs just as I defend the right of scientists to explore unfettered of religious constraints. Hell, I tend to be more vociferous in my defense of science, because I like science and my faith has no problem with it, but I still don't approve of any attempt to castigate people for their beliefs.

It's also hard to say that you support faith but then point out parts of a persons faith and say "that's wrong and you're wrong to believe that." It's a complete misunderstanding of the way faith works to even attempt that.

Except faith isn't about rejecting what is known, or at least shouldn't have to be. It is about building a sophisticated world view that has a place for what we know about the world in terms of science, religion and philosophy. Simply declaring one book to be absolutely literally true regardless of everything else shortchanges science and religion.

Not everybody is sophisticated. We're intelligent people, educated and trained in matters of theology, philosophy, logic and science. I'd argue that saying it's impossible that the Bible is literally true shows that you don't have a truly open mind towards faith. It's almost certainly not, I'd agree, but I don't know that. It could be true. God could have laid down dinosaur bones to test our faith, and every word could be the literal truth.

Most people reject the idea that the bible is literally true because it conflicts with what we know about the world and how it works. Trusting our senses and reason, we decide that it is more allegorical, that translation, age, and the simplicity of it's authors give us wiggle room in which to extract the core truths while still being men of reason. We know that if god created us in his image, part of that was the abilty to think, create, and judge; and that rejection of literalism is part of our growth as spiritual beings. I'm totally on board with this thought.

That said, there are a lot of people that, for lack of a better word, are simply better at self delusion. They can reject the evidence we see, they can ignore the rational processes we use, and the can gloss over the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the text itself. It's a very human thing, delusion. You see it in every person who stays with an abusive spouse, or believes that their friend is quitting drugs "for real this time," or the guy who submits his fifth novel after four were rejected. I use my self delusion on other things, but a lot use it on their faith and their religion. Yes, through extensive therapy, medication, and treatment you could probably break these people down, but to what end? I still say it's easier to just work around them, and kinder as well.

Frazzled wrote:Wow, I'm so pleased I just payed to be a DCM so you people could attack religion.

In the immortal words of Ron White. "Well feth you."

I'm going to go away for awhile.

Sorry Frazzled but I am really going to have to take issue with on this one.

Firstly being a paid up member doesn't not mean that all opinions must agree with yours.

Secondly this is not a religion bashing, merely an invitation to debate. There was nothing in the initial post which stated the opinion that the creationist stance was necessarily inferior. Just different.

Finally all opinions and stances 'must' be free to be challenged and scrutinsed. I appreciate how important to many people their faith is but this does not make it immune to criticism. This does not however mean you are being persecuted, I've noticed a very worrying trend amongst many religious groups (this is by no means limited to Christianity) to claim persecution whener challenges to their views and opinions are made. This is not only inaccurate but counter productive as its going to make those with opposing viewpoints far less willing to debate with you.

Lets get back to the topic at hand.

With regards to creationism I personally have no time for it. Simply because it defies any logic. Generally I'm a big beiver in the principle of Occums Razor and a religious answer to a question (any question) to me just is neither simple not logical. Indeed giving 'God' as a solution to any question simply raises far more subsequent questions that it answers. Its what Dawkins calls a Skyhook.

To be perfectly honest I've done very little reading on evolution since A-Level biology. But I do recall seeing plenty of evidence for it which I have no intention of going into now. Incidentally I notice many are confusing Evolution and Abiogenisis. Evolution never has nor ever intended to offer a solution to the origin of life on earth. That’s a matter for another day.

i dont know. i asked questions in my sciance class.... questions that got me kicked out of the class countless times (ok... im sure there is a record of it at the school if they keep them that long).

it was allways stuff like

Q : "well, 2 chapters ago we learned that everything has a point at which it begun. and in the last chapter we learned that matter cannot creat itself..... so what created the universe again???"

A : "The big Bang, you know, when all the matter in the universe was pulled into one tiny point no bigger then the tip of your pen then exploded"

Q : "and where did that matter come from?"

A : "GET OUT OF MY CLASS!"

So you were a troll that added nothing to conversations even in school? I guess that makes sense.

It's a bit unfair to accuse Envy89 of being a troll, he has a reasonable point.

Science has still not solved the question of how the universe was created. That doesn't mean it can't.

Possibly the concept of finite universes is beyond human understanding.

Sadly it now seems that the Large Hadron Collider is out of action for six months.

Time for a joke.

A surgeon, an engineer and an economist are sitting in a bar arguing about the nature of God.

The surgeon says that God create Eve from an rib he took out of Adam. This was a surgical procedure, so obviously God is a surgeon.

The engineer argues that before God created Eve or Adam, he first had to create the universe, which he did by building it up from primordial chaos. This was a huge engineering project, so obviously God is an engineer.

The economist clears his throat and says, "Where do you think the chaos came from?"

Kilkrazy wrote:It's a bit unfair to accuse Envy89 of being a troll, he has a reasonable point.

Science has still not solved the question of how the universe was created. That doesn't mean it can't.

Possibly the concept of finite universes is beyond human understanding.

Sadly it now seems that the Large Hadron Collider is out of action for six months.

It does have some interesting theories though. Of course, at some point mathematical modeling becomes roughly analogous to writing a logical proof of God's existence.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's a bit unfair to accuse Envy89 of being a troll, he has a reasonable point.

Science has still not solved the question of how the universe was created. That doesn't mean it can't.

Possibly the concept of finite universes is beyond human understanding.

Sadly it now seems that the Large Hadron Collider is out of action for six months.

It's a valid question, no doubt about that, but it wasn't presented as a valid question or point. It was presented as a smarmy little straw man that had very little to do with the actual topic, and was more concerned with making a position look bad than in advancing any recognizable point or assertion. For those keeping track at home, it involved the following little internet debating gambits: moving the goalposts, presenting anecdotal and unprovable evidence, a straw man argument, and posting in an ambiguous and indeed nearly unreadable format so that he can always claim it was "a joke." I'm sorry if it's unfair, but the Poster has made a habit of making similarly structured posts in various debates. I think my record is pretty clear that I'm fair minded and able to both defend my position well and willing to concede points when I cannot. I know a troll when I see one.

The tragedy inherent in this is that I actually agree with him on this point. I think that the universe was created by God. I just would advance the argument a little more diplomatically.

People often say that religion makes it's followers feel good because if they follow it's tenets then they get to go to heaven or something along those lines. I think that aethism is the same and even moreso... there is no accountibility to a higher power so you are free to do whatever you like as long as you can keep other people happy.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:People often say that religion makes it's followers feel good because if they follow it's tenets then they get to go to heaven or something along those lines. I think that aethism is the same and even moreso... there is no accountibility to a higher power so you are free to do whatever you like as long as you can keep other people happy.

G

I think that everybody reacts to their own existential angst in different ways. Some find atheism comforting, as it allows a person to live for themselves and other people, and not feel that their life is simply a means to an end. Others find it comforting to know that there is a higher power that loves us and wants to be with us.

I think it's a bit like any other lifestyle choice. Every person has the obligation to themselves to make their own peace with the universe.

Green Blow Fly wrote:People often say that religion makes it's followers feel good because if they follow it's tenets then they get to go to heaven or something along those lines. I think that aethism is the same and even moreso... there is no accountibility to a higher power so you are free to do whatever you like as long as you can keep other people happy.

G

Its important to understand that Atheism isn't a religion. Neither is Theism. They are just terms related to the belief in God, or gods. A Theist can be secular, and and Atheist can be religious. There is a lot of crossover. For example, its hard to classify a secular humanist. Clearly, as secularists, they do not follow any religion. However, as humanists, they believe in a supreme being, or ultimate reality (humanity) and so could be said to believe in God. At some point it all just comes down a semantic choice as the terms being utilized are so incredibly inclusive that they barely have meaning at all.

Envy89 wrote:i dont know. i asked questions in my sciance class.... questions that got me kicked out of the class countless times (ok... im sure there is a record of it at the school if they keep them that long).

it was allways stuff like

Q : "well, 2 chapters ago we learned that everything has a point at which it begun. and in the last chapter we learned that matter cannot creat itself..... so what created the universe again???"

A : "The big Bang, you know, when all the matter in the universe was pulled into one tiny point no bigger then the tip of your pen then exploded"

Q : "and where did that matter come from?"

A : "GET OUT OF MY CLASS!"

Indeed there is nothing wrong with those questions and I'm the first to admit there are many things that currently we cannot answer. I'm just not convinced that its appropriate to look at something we currently can't explain and therefore assume the only alternative is that a supnatural being was involved. I prefer to admit that we simply do know whilst remaining confident that answers (and more than likely more questions!) will emerge with time and study.

Indeed going back to my earlier point whilst god 'answers' one short term question it subsequently creates thousands more. If the universe was made by a complex creator then by this logic that must also have been created by something even more complicated and so on and so on. To me creationism is nothing more than a vicious circle.

Polonius wrote:

I think that everybody reacts to their own existential angst in different ways. Some find atheism comforting, as it allows a person to live for themselves and other people, and not feel that their life is simply a means to an end. Others find it comforting to know that there is a higher power that loves us and wants to be with us.

I think it's a bit like any other lifestyle choice. Every person has the obligation to themselves to make their own peace with the universe.

I agree with this. I admit I do find atheism comforting because, as far as im concerned, the alternative is an horrific nightmare.

Let me elaborate, according to the teaching of Christianity, God:

1) Is constantly observing us all, even behind closed doors in the privacy of our own homes.
2) Is reading our thoughts, the ultimate though police!
3) Will subsequently judge and punish us accordingly, based on his own rules that we (humanity) have had no say whatsover in. Without hope of due process or appeal, effectively making him a self appointed Judge, Jury and Executioner.
4) Is totally self appointed and does not have to answer to anyone. Giving him carte balance to act as he sees fit without fear of our aproval.

To me this is the ultimate Orwellian nightmare and it honestly puzzles me that people take comfort in what is essentially a supernatural dictatorship. If the state where to act this it would lead to rioting and revolution and rightly so (mind you I live in Britain so a strongly worded letter to the Times would be the most I could expect!). If I live in dictatorship I always have the option of taking to the streets and starting an uprising but with God I have no such option.

So yes my Atheism is comforting because if I am wrong then, as far as im concerned, we are all slaves.

No one can understand a god. I don't worry about it.

G

LuciusAR wrote:
To me this is the ultimate Orwellian nightmare and it honestly puzzles me that people take comfort in what is essentially a supernatural dictatorship. If the state where to act this it would lead to rioting and revolution and rightly so (mind you I live in Britain so a strongly worded letter to the Times would be the most I could expect!). If I live in dictatorship I always have the option of taking to the streets and starting an uprising but with God I have no such option.

So yes my Atheism is comforting because if I am wrong then, as far as im concerned, we are all slaves.

Many of the religious people I know share the same belief about naturalism, and humanism. Essentially that if there is nothing beyond nature/humanity to which I can appeal, then I am a slave to nature/humanity.

Green Blow Fly wrote:No one can understand a god. I don't worry about it.

G

There's a quote from an old Hindu philosopher that I really like (it's not verbatim, but the jist is correct): If there is an all powerful being who created an infinite universe and all within it; how or why would they expect something as small and insignificant as a human being to understand them?

It always struck me as odd that what God desires is unwavering and unquestioning faith without evidence from his followers. Seems a bit petty to me.

So far this thread has generated less animosity than any "Do Deff Rollas affect vehicles?" thread.

^ truth.

What would Gork and Mork do? That is what ask myself when stuck in a moral condundrum.

G

Polonius wrote:That's a bit of slippery slope argument. The MMR debacle was a legal strategy (that failed) that had nothing to do with faith or religion.

Fair enough, the MMR thing was something of a stretch on my part. But I do think a culture in which people think there's nothing unusual about bucking the entirety of scientific community and declaring 'I know better' is a bad thing, especially when they don't know much about the topic at hand.

Again, and I hate to keep repeating myself, I fully oppose people using their faith to set public policy. All I'm saying is that I stand for a persons right to have whatever beliefs they want to in their own mind. I don't want it taught in schools, I don't want it used as evidence in the courtroom, and I dont' want it used to elect people. But if it makes a person feel better to think that god created his ancestors 6000 years ago and simply made everything look older to test his faith, well, I say let him. He's not going to be a visiting lecturer at the Geology Society. Yes, in a scientific forum, you can tell him that he's wrong. If he brings his faith based ideas into a factual arena, he deserves what he gets.

Sure, people have freedom to believe whatever they want, I'm not arguing to start shipping Young Earthers to gulags or anything. But I am saying the kind of culture where people are willing to reject massive amounts of research without ever bothering to understand it is a bad thing, and reflects poorly on the culture of knowledge and the quality of education in this country.

Not everybody is sophisticated. We're intelligent people, educated and trained in matters of theology, philosophy, logic and science. I'd argue that saying it's impossible that the Bible is literally true shows that you don't have a truly open mind towards faith. It's almost certainly not, I'd agree, but I don't know that. It could be true. God could have laid down dinosaur bones to test our faith, and every word could be the literal truth.

Sure, it's possible God lay the dinosaur bones down to test our faith. If someone actually believed that, and then went about their lives treating everything as a possible trap from God that might draw them away from the truth, and were equally suspicious of all facts... well then they'd be consistent. Except no-one acts like that, evidence as a test from God only comes up as a last step defence when there's something they can't otherwise explain.

Most people reject the idea that the bible is literally true because it conflicts with what we know about the world and how it works. Trusting our senses and reason, we decide that it is more allegorical, that translation, age, and the simplicity of it's authors give us wiggle room in which to extract the core truths while still being men of reason. We know that if god created us in his image, part of that was the abilty to think, create, and judge; and that rejection of literalism is part of our growth as spiritual beings. I'm totally on board with this thought.

Absolutely.

That said, there are a lot of people that, for lack of a better word, are simply better at self delusion. They can reject the evidence we see, they can ignore the rational processes we use, and the can gloss over the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the text itself. It's a very human thing, delusion. You see it in every person who stays with an abusive spouse, or believes that their friend is quitting drugs "for real this time," or the guy who submits his fifth novel after four were rejected. I use my self delusion on other things, but a lot use it on their faith and their religion. Yes, through extensive therapy, medication, and treatment you could probably break these people down, but to what end? I still say it's easier to just work around them, and kinder as well.

I think there's always a point in people becoming more aware and better informed.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's a bit unfair to accuse Envy89 of being a troll, he has a reasonable point.

Science has still not solved the question of how the universe was created. That doesn't mean it can't.

There are lots of unsolved questions in science. I expect there always will be.

But the idea of 'we don't know that, therefore God must have done it' is faulty. It's been faulty for a very long time, and isn't constructive in terms of scientific or religious debate.

Polonius wrote:It's a valid question, no doubt about that, but it wasn't presented as a valid question or point. It was presented as a smarmy little straw man that had very little to do with the actual topic, and was more concerned with making a position look bad than in advancing any recognizable point or assertion. For those keeping track at home, it involved the following little internet debating gambits: moving the goalposts, presenting anecdotal and unprovable evidence, a straw man argument, and posting in an ambiguous and indeed nearly unreadable format so that he can always claim it was "a joke." I'm sorry if it's unfair, but the Poster has made a habit of making similarly structured posts in various debates. I think my record is pretty clear that I'm fair minded and able to both defend my position well and willing to concede points when I cannot. I know a troll when I see one.

The tragedy inherent in this is that I actually agree with him on this point. I think that the universe was created by God. I just would advance the argument a little more diplomatically.

Is it possible he's not a troll, but just really bad at debate?

Green Blow Fly wrote:People often say that religion makes it's followers feel good because if they follow it's tenets then they get to go to heaven or something along those lines. I think that aethism is the same and even moreso... there is no accountibility to a higher power so you are free to do whatever you like as long as you can keep other people happy.

G

You've assumed that atheism carries with it a freedom from morality, which is a bad assumption. It's bad because it relies on the idea that morality and empathy can only come from God, which is obviously wrong given that atheists aren't over-represented in murder and stealing.

That said, the idea that the faithful choose religion is a bad argument. Good thing no-one made it.

sebster wrote:
Is it possible he's not a troll, but just really bad at debate?

It's possible, in fact he clearly is bad at debate. I think if you look at his posting history, in particular that one post, it was meant to elicit an emotional response, rather than to advance any position. His post was certainly flamebait, if not outright trolling. I'd also point out that he has an overtly political clip as his sig, and clearly has a political agenda.

I think there comes a point where if you're going to post on important matters you either learn how to post without trolling, or you have to bear the brunt of being treated like a troll. If you want to be taken seriously, post in a serious manner.

sebster wrote:
Fair enough, the MMR thing was something of a stretch on my part. But I do think a culture in which people think there's nothing unusual about bucking the entirety of scientific community and declaring 'I know better' is a bad thing, especially when they don't know much about the topic at hand.

Again, why? What's the harm? Why is it bad? I mean, I agree with you, I think it's a troubling sign. I'm just finding it interesting that nobody can point out what actually is the harm in people holding these beliefs.

Sure, people have freedom to believe whatever they want, I'm not arguing to start shipping Young Earthers to gulags or anything. But I am saying the kind of culture where people are willing to reject massive amounts of research without ever bothering to understand it is a bad thing, and reflects poorly on the culture of knowledge and the quality of education in this country.

Every culture does it. Nobody understands most research, not even intellectuals. I agree with you that society would be better if people took science more seriously, but the link between that and a faith in creationism isn't as strong as youd' think. your comment about education is a good one, in that I think most people are taught science as they're taught social studies: "here is a list of facts that we know are true. Memorize them and write them on the test." In fact, science is a process, but that's not what is emphasized. If more people understood how science is done, there might be less reluctance to accept evolution.

I'm also not sure you can't believe god created man in his image 6000 years ago and still learn science. If you believe in an omnipotent god, god could have created the world 5 minutes ago, with memories and history intact.

Sure, it's possible God lay the dinosaur bones down to test our faith. If someone actually believed that, and then went about their lives treating everything as a possible trap from God that might draw them away from the truth, and were equally suspicious of all facts... well then they'd be consistent. Except no-one acts like that, evidence as a test from God only comes up as a last step defence when there's something they can't otherwise explain.

News flash! People are hypocritical about their beliefs! Sorry, I mean, again, you're right of course. The other answer for fossils is that they were created in the flood. The point is that it's not about evidence. There isn't much science in the Bible, so there aren't a lot of times when scripture and empiricism will conflict, so it's pretty easy to pick one or two areas and really dig in your heels and ignore all evidence. Faith isn't just a belief in things unseen despite a lack of evidence, its that belief even in the fact of evidence against that belief. There is no evidence that can be produce that will shake these people. That, I suppose, is the real problem, that there are people that cannot be convinced, but luckily while the bible says mankind was created by god, it doesn't say that mankind shouldn't be exploring space, or curing disease.

On the other hand, many Christians view most aspects of life as a test from god.

I think there's always a point in people becoming more aware and better informed.

I agree. I think there are more pressing problems, and easier ways to find common ground between faith and science than by tackling this one head on. Treat the symptoms, to be sure, and continue efforts to educate the people, but the older generations aren't going to change their minds. The evidence for evolution is better now than it was even 20 years ago.

I think I need to make a few points about why I'm posting here.

I think that clinging to faith based ideas in the face of scientific evidence is bad. I don't think it's harmful to others, but I think it impedes a person's development and makes him more likely to make poor decisions on policy.

the reason I'm going to the mat for people who believe this is because I think that everybody has a right to believe what they want. I think that efforts to point out that a person's beliefs are wrong come perilously close to the dogma that reason was meant to eliminate. I think that much of the zeal for this issue comes not from a genuine concern about the issue and it's consequences but from a dislike of people that have certain beliefs. I feel that while evangelical Christians are a hard group to like sometimes, they're arrogance and lust for power should be met with tolerance and stoic resistance. I think that men of reason can be more Christian than the Christians.

Of course, this no longer applies once they enter the realm of public debate. If you want to talk, you better be prepared to back your stuff up, white boy.

Polonius wrote:Of course, this no longer applies once they enter the realm of public debate. If you want to talk, you better be prepared to back your stuff up, white boy.

Did I win something?

sebster wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:People often say that religion makes it's followers feel good because if they follow it's tenets then they get to go to heaven or something along those lines. I think that aethism is the same and even moreso... there is no accountibility to a higher power so you are free to do whatever you like as long as you can keep other people happy.

G

You've assumed that atheism carries with it a freedom from morality, which is a bad assumption. It's bad because it relies on the idea that morality and empathy can only come from God, which is obviously wrong given that atheists aren't over-represented in murder and stealing.

That said, the idea that the faithful choose religion is a bad argument. Good thing no-one made it.

I have never heard of a rapist or serial killer who is a religiou type unless you consider Satanism. I believe all sane people know the difference between right and wrong but I suppose that can be argued/refuted as well. Obviously a person's environment shapes their views, especially during the early years while still forming a complete identity for one's self. One is right to one person might be construed as wrong to another for whatever reason. An objective view from someone outside their sphere of influence might be considered alien to the one deeply entrenched in dogma.

G

LuciusAR wrote:

To me this is the ultimate Orwellian nightmare and it honestly puzzles me that people take comfort in what is essentially a supernatural dictatorship. If the state where to act this it would lead to rioting and revolution and rightly so (mind you I live in Britain so a strongly worded letter to the Times would be the most I could expect!). If I live in dictatorship I always have the option of taking to the streets and starting an uprising but with God I have no such option.

So yes my Atheism is comforting because if I am wrong then, as far as im concerned, we are all slaves.

Belief in God as the supreme power accords with an authoritarian mindset. This is no doubt why religious observance has a positive correlation with social and political conservatism, and related thinking such as a belief in creationism.

Polonius wrote:Did I win something?

Green Blow Fly wrote:I have never heard of a rapist or serial killer who is a religiou type unless you consider Satanism.

Really? You might want to read a newspaper sometime. Or maybe define "religious type" a little more narrowly. And Satanism is a red herring.

Kilkrazy wrote:Belief in God as the supreme power accords with an authoritarian mindset.

Leviathan anyone? Not the unit, the Hobbes work. And not the tiger. Though he is awesome too.

A nice example of authoritarianism is to tell your 7 year old daughter in early December she must be good or else Father Christmas won't bring her a present.

Green Blow Fly wrote:

I have never heard of a rapist or serial killer who is a religiou type unless you consider Satanism.

Jim Jones ?

Dahmer was a member of some little off shoot of the main church.

Albert Fish had some.... interesting...religious views too.

Matter does appear out of nothing. Positive and negative atoms just appear. Typically they annihilate each other. (Yes it's more complex than that. Read.)

People arguing about whether god exists or not is stupid. It's pretty much a personal question.

Anyway isn't this thread supposed to be about republicans, not if god actually does exist or not?

Polonius wrote:Again, why? What's the harm? Why is it bad? I mean, I agree with you, I think it's a troubling sign. I'm just finding it interesting that nobody can point out what actually is the harm in people holding these beliefs.

I think its dangerous to the extent that it drifts into public policy debate. When it comes, specifically, to the idea of 6,000 year old Earth there are no direct parallels, because as a research field it's mostly in the 'ain't it cool' area and not so much in the 'saving lives' area. The issue, to me, is not so much people believing the world to be 6,000 years old, but that people are so far removed from the debate that they can think something like a 6,000 year old earth is at all possible.

Look at the folk that pop up to argue that the solution to the financial crisis is to cut back welfare and social spending. Look at the MMR/autism thing. Maybe it is long bow, but it seems its all part of the same assumption that expert opinion doesn't matter and people can believe whatever they want and expect it all to be as legitmate as everything else.

Every culture does it. Nobody understands most research, not even intellectuals. I agree with you that society would be better if people took science more seriously, but the link between that and a faith in creationism isn't as strong as youd' think. your comment about education is a good one, in that I think most people are taught science as they're taught social studies: "here is a list of facts that we know are true. Memorize them and write them on the test." In fact, science is a process, but that's not what is emphasized. If more people understood how science is done, there might be less reluctance to accept evolution.

Yeah, I wish science, both hard and soft, were taught as a process of ongoing debate. I think it'd make a big difference.

I'm also not sure you can't believe god created man in his image 6000 years ago and still learn science. If you believe in an omnipotent god, god could have created the world 5 minutes ago, with memories and history intact.

It kind of makes the empirical method a bit void, that's for sure.

I agree. I think there are more pressing problems, and easier ways to find common ground between faith and science than by tackling this one head on. Treat the symptoms, to be sure, and continue efforts to educate the people, but the older generations aren't going to change their minds. The evidence for evolution is better now than it was even 20 years ago.

Yeah, fair point.

Polonius wrote:the reason I'm going to the mat for people who believe this is because I think that everybody has a right to believe what they want. I think that efforts to point out that a person's beliefs are wrong come perilously close to the dogma that reason was meant to eliminate. I think that much of the zeal for this issue comes not from a genuine concern about the issue and it's consequences but from a dislike of people that have certain beliefs. I feel that while evangelical Christians are a hard group to like sometimes, they're arrogance and lust for power should be met with tolerance and stoic resistance. I think that men of reason can be more Christian than the Christians.

I think this might be the part where you and I disagree, on the right to believe what ever we want. Sure, people can believe whatever they want in that you can't stop them believing it, and you it's a very bad thing to go about persecuting people for their beliefs. But just because people are entitled to their beliefs doesn't mean those beliefs are legitimate. Whether they enter the people forum or not, ignorance is ignorance.

Now, I'm not saying people should go around shouting down anyone with an opinion that isn't very well informed, there is such a thing as decent manners. But there's a point where the genuinely respectful thing is to be honest and say 'you're wrong, you don't know the basic facts of the argument and if you want to be taken seriously you'd better read up on the issue'.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I have never heard of a rapist or serial killer who is a religiou type unless you consider Satanism. I believe all sane people know the difference between right and wrong but I suppose that can be argued/refuted as well. Obviously a person's environment shapes their views, especially during the early years while still forming a complete identity for one's self. One is right to one person might be construed as wrong to another for whatever reason. An objective view from someone outside their sphere of influence might be considered alien to the one deeply entrenched in dogma.

G

Okay, no offence but 'no Christian serial killers' is very obviously wrong. Berkowitz. Yates. Dahmer. Insanity doesn't limit itself by religious preference.

The rest of it... I agree with entirely. A little anti-climactic maybe but there you have it

sebster wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I have never heard of a rapist or serial killer who is a religiou type unless you consider Satanism. I believe all sane people know the difference between right and wrong but I suppose that can be argued/refuted as well. Obviously a person's environment shapes their views, especially during the early years while still forming a complete identity for one's self. One is right to one person might be construed as wrong to another for whatever reason. An objective view from someone outside their sphere of influence might be considered alien to the one deeply entrenched in dogma.

G

Okay, no offence but 'no Christian serial killers' is very obviously wrong. Berkowitz. Yates. Dahmer. Insanity doesn't limit itself by religious preference.

The rest of it... I agree with entirely. A little anti-climactic maybe but there you have it

One of the most twisted, bizarre, darkly funny things I ever saw was an interview with Dahmer where he claimed believing in evolution was an affront to God because it devalued human life. You know, because killing people, eating them, and planning to build a shrine from their bones is the perfect affirmation of the value of human life.

olympia wrote:So far this thread has generated less animosity than any "Do Deff Rollas affect vehicles?" thread.

Gee a thread full of atheists "discussing religion." Yea no animosity there.

Dakka should not be a forum denigrating religion. It violates the first rule of Dakka-be courteous to other posters.

How is this thread denigrating religion? It's discussing it. Everyone here is being pretty damn curteous, as we are all (hopefully) mature enough to realise it is a contentious issue. And not everyone posting is an atheist either. I really don't see why religious beliefs should get some special protection that means they mustn't be talked about, as long as this doesn't devolve into a slanging match.

Frazzled wrote:

olympia wrote:So far this thread has generated less animosity than any "Do Deff Rollas affect vehicles?" thread.

Gee a thread full of atheists "discussing religion." Yea no animosity there.

Dakka should not be a forum denigrating religion. It violates the first rule of Dakka-be courteous to other posters.

But this isn't a thread denigrating religion!

This goes back to the point of playing the victim I made earlier. People are discussing their respective viewpoints in a calm and rational manner. I admit many of the posters are falling on one side of the fence but this doesn’t mean that the other side is being persecuted and I see nothing here that could be described as discourteous.

Frazzled wrote:

olympia wrote:So far this thread has generated less animosity than any "Do Deff Rollas affect vehicles?" thread.

Gee a thread full of atheists "discussing religion." Yea no animosity there.

Dakka should not be a forum denigrating religion. It violates the first rule of Dakka-be courteous to other posters.

As shown before, any hint of the word "Christian" in any context besides saying "Gosh, aren't all Christians just wonderful?" and you take it as the most discourteous and insulting thing ever. You make it impossible to have any meaningful discussion on any subject if Christianity is involved. If this thread were about Islam saying the exact same things you wouldn't care at all and probably would be joining in. I remember a discussion in which we were talking about a small group of Christian fanatics, and even after pointing out they were the extreme minority of all Christians you were still frothing at the mouth that all of Christiandom was under violent assault and that everyone was a meanie and an atheist.

Frazzled wrote:
Gee a thread full of atheists "discussing religion."

But Polonius is a self-professed Catholic. Granted, there are some evangelicals out there who think the Pope is the anti-christ, but I would consider Catholics to be Christians.

Frazzled wrote:

olympia wrote:So far this thread has generated less animosity than any "Do Deff Rollas affect vehicles?" thread.

Gee a thread full of atheists "discussing religion." Yea no animosity there.

Dakka should not be a forum denigrating religion. It violates the first rule of Dakka-be courteous to other posters.

I've called out a general pattern of behavior that I felt was being disdainful towards religion, but I think most of the posters here have been respectful. Do you have an actual problem with any of the posts?

If nothing else, I think I've been working hard to defend the views of the religious folks in question, and I kind of resent you making such a sweeping claim about a thread, particularly one in which I am, for once, not in opposition to your stance.

Polonius wrote:
If nothing else, I think I've been working hard to defend the views of the religious folks in question, and I kind of resent you making such a sweeping claim about a thread, particularly one in which I am, for once, not in opposition to your stance.

Back on the topic of Republicans, a sarcastic remark is vastly preferable to terminating the thread with Extreme Christian Prejudice, but still very much in character. The 'Republican problem' is justification by religious stance, the forceful imposition of personal values on smaller cultures, and an apparent disdain for cosmopolitanism. In such a small world, especially compared to the Reagan/H. G. era, these 'qualities' are difficult to respect.

I find it hard to believe that true believer in an omnipotent and caring God could be a rapist or serial killer. Obviously they are insane. Just my 2c.

G

Peter Sutcliffe, a British Serial killer known as the Yorkshire Ripper was convinced that Jesus told him to kill women.

Now I don't honestly believe that Jesus told him these things however he arguably was as sincere in his belief as any nice Christian.

I think that could be argued. These types are clever and have been known to use religion as a means of lessening the penalties after being captured. I wouldn't put any stock in anything they say. That's just me though.

G

Believing that Christ died for our sins and actually following Christ are two very different things. Some people are (sadly) just bitter and spiteful, and do things because they're sins. One other thing I've noticed a great deal of is people not denying the tenets of Christianity, but denying their willingness to follow them. Most people I talk to, even those who aren't religious, believe that Jesus was real and was the son of God.

Obviously this will be skewed in other countries, but I'm speaking for the USA (I'm in Florida, which is chock FULL of the Crazy, but seems to be representative of most of the rest of the country too).

Religion is an intensely personal thing. I'm very tolerant of other religions and usually enjoy talking with others about their religious beliefs (I make a few exceptions; I detest cults that operate under the guise of religion, so I guess that's not really religion at all).

I was going to post a few more viewpoints, but I think that'd just stir the pot up more. I'll leave it here.

LuciusAR wrote:Peter Sutcliffe, a British Serial killer known as the Yorkshire Ripper was convinced that Jesus told him to kill women.

Now I don't honestly believe that Jesus told him these things however he arguably was as sincere in his belief as any nice Christian.

This reminds me of the trial of Joan of Arc. She, of course, claimed to be doing the work of god. The English called her a witch. Their position was, that voice you heard wasn't god telling you to smite us, it was the devil talking:

In all this the accused with daring rashness and at the instigation of the Devil offended God and His Holy Church, against which she has scandalously committed excesses and crimes, is notoriously defamed thereof and has appeared before you to be corrected and reformed.

She replied, well no, it wasn't the devil it was god. Poor girl, the English said, the devil can take a form that may look like an angel to deceive you:

there have been deceptions and phantasms on the part of devils who usurp the form of angels and sometimes counterfeit the appearance and likeness of different persons

Oh, and she dressed like a man so that proved she was a witch.

Iorek wrote:Believing that Christ died for our sins and actually following Christ are two very different things. Some people are (sadly) just bitter and spiteful, and do things because they're sins. One other thing I've noticed a great deal of is people not denying the tenets of Christianity, but denying their willingness to follow them. Most people I talk to, even those who aren't religious, believe that Jesus was real and was the son of God.

Obviously this will be skewed in other countries, but I'm speaking for the USA (I'm in Florida, which is chock FULL of the Crazy, but seems to be representative of most of the rest of the country too).

Religion is an intensely personal thing. I'm very tolerant of other religions and usually enjoy talking with others about their religious beliefs (I make a few exceptions; I detest cults that operate under the guise of religion, so I guess that's not really religion at all).

I was going to post a few more viewpoints, but I think that'd just stir the pot up more. I'll leave it here.

I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate on this.

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone willing 'sinning' for its own sake, though I suppose It depends on how you defining 'sinning'. Eating meat on Friday and mixing different cloths are Sins if one takes a literalist view of the scriptures, as some churches do. It sounds to me like your implying that people are committing acts specifically to spite god as opposed out of any pleasure gained from the 'sinful' act.

In Brittan things are rather different and there is much less an emphasis on religion in day to day life. I honestly know nobody who regularly attends church services for example.

I believe there is plenty of evidence that a man called Jesus did exist (though I'm no expert) though as far as I'm aware there is little to no historical evidence (aside from scripture) that he either claimed to be the son of God or committed any acts that could be described as magical.

LuciusAR wrote:
I don't think I've ever heard of anyone willing 'sinning' for its own sake, though I suppose It depends on how you defining 'sinning'. Eating meat on Friday and mixing different cloths are Sins if one takes a literalist view of the scriptures, as some churches do. It sounds to me like your implying that people are committing acts specifically to spite god as opposed out of any pleasure gained from the 'sinful' act.

Orthodox Satanism is built on the notion that sin is equivalent to freedom. In essence, every act of sin is an affront to God, and so every act of sin is an act of rebellion. You prove that God is not omnipotent, and therefore not necessarily divine, by acting against his teachings and living a full life.

Iorek wrote: ... Most people I talk to, even those who aren't religious, believe that Jesus was real and was the son of God...

... Religion is an intensely personal thing. I'm very tolerant of other religions and usually enjoy talking with others about their religious beliefs (I make a few exceptions; I detest cults that operate under the guise of religion, so I guess that's not really religion at all).

I was going to post a few more viewpoints, but I think that'd just stir the pot up more. I'll leave it here.

You're certainly given it a good stir with that one. On the former remark, you can only possibly be referring to people who are religious. I believe that Jesus was real. I was raised a Christian too, but I'm not religious and do not claim to be a part of any special club. I certainly can't bring myself to believe that he was the son of someone I don't believe exists - hence I'm not religious.

The second remark is incredibly intolerant. Can someone explain the difference between a religion, a cult, and a cultural interest? I like to think of a religion as a cult with a dead leader or figurehead, but really it's up to the spectator. You think some some religions are invalid, and hence you call them cults. I don't think any differently about Christianity where its practices are questionable - like fundamentalist Christianity. Cult and self-interest is written all over it.

Polonius wrote:

I'm also not sure you can't believe god created man in his image 6000 years ago and still learn science. If you believe in an omnipotent god, god could have created the world 5 minutes ago, with memories and history intact.

Descartes argued that god is not a deceiver and most christians, I think accept this.

And the whole force of the argument of which I have here availed
myself to establish the existence of God, consists in this, that I perceive
I could not possibly be of such a nature as I am, and yet have in my mind
the idea of a God, if God did not in reality exist--this same God, I say,
whose idea is in my mind --that is, a being who possesses all those lofty
perfections, of which the mind may have some slight conception, without,
however, being able fully to comprehend them, and who is wholly superior to
all defect [ and has nothing that marks imperfection]: whence it is
sufficiently manifest that he cannot be a deceiver, since it is a dictate of
the natural light that all fraud and deception spring from some
defect.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
The second remark is incredibly intolerant. Can someone explain the difference between a religion, a cult, and a cultural interest?

A religion is a set of beliefs.

A cult is a group structured by a common belief in something physical, typically a person.

A cult can be religious, but it doesn't have to be.

A cultural interest is an interest guided by membership in a cult.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I find it hard to believe that true believer in an omnipotent and caring God could be a rapist or serial killer. Obviously they are insane. Just my 2c.

G

What you’ve got there is the classic case of ‘No True Scotsman’. That is, you start with assumption, ‘No Christian is a serial killer’ and then when evidence comes up to the contrary, you shift the definition to a more restrictive form, ‘no true Christian is a serial killer’.

Problem is, by changing it to the more restrictive form you’ve ended up with a completely circular argument. Now the definition of Christian is someone who accepts Jesus and Lord and Saviour and who doesn’t go around murdering loads of people. At which point you’re basically saying that no-one who accepts Jesus as Lord and Saviour and hasn’t go around killing people has ever gone around killing people. Something of a truism, really.

Truth is no philosophical teaching should lead to a trunk full of dead hookers, but it happens anyway, because some folk are crazy. There's really no point scoring to be made with serial killers one way or another, they're so extreme they're quite useless for assessing the majority.

dogma wrote:A religion is a set of beliefs.

A cult is a group structured by a common belief in something physical, typically a person.

A cult can be religious, but it doesn't have to be.

Historians that study the first followers of Jesus refer to the "Jesus Movement." The term Christianity is reserved for subsequent developments.

Iorek wrote:Believing that Christ died for our sins and actually following Christ are two very different things. Some people are (sadly) just bitter and spiteful, and do things because they're sins. One other thing I've noticed a great deal of is people not denying the tenets of Christianity, but denying their willingness to follow them. Most people I talk to, even those who aren't religious, believe that Jesus was real and was the son of God.

Really, that’s pretty weird. Folk I know are split fairly evenly between moderate Christians, moderate atheists and agnostics, with the odd hardline Christian or atheist thrown in for good measure*. But I’ve never met anyone that believed Jesus was the Son of God but didn’t follow him out of spite. I really want to meet one of these people, that’s mindset I’d love to get to know, completely alien to me.

olympia wrote:

Historians that study the first followers of Jesus refer to the "Jesus Movement." The term Christianity is reserved for subsequent developments.

Yeah, like most religions Christianity began as a cult.

LuciusAR wrote:I believe there is plenty of evidence that a man called Jesus did exist (though I'm no expert) though as far as I'm aware there is little to no historical evidence (aside from scripture) that he either claimed to be the son of God or committed any acts that could be described as magical.

Well, the short answer is that there is no evidence of Jesus. No written records from the time support any specific incident in his life, beyond the broad historical events of the time.

The slightly longer answer is that it’s hardly unexpected that we don’t have evidence of one guy. There are great empires with kings we don’t know the names of, the historical record is pretty spotty. Jesus was not a powerful figure in his own time, and it’s no surprise that nothing was written down about him, or that whatever administrative records were kept have been lost to time.

The slightly even longer answer is that a character like Jesus, a subversive rabbi with claims of miracles, certainly fits with the region at the time. It’s possible the story of Jesus could be a collection of stories from a number of rabbis.

So it’s a story that makes a bit of sense given what we know of the region, but nothing we have any concrete evidence for, but then we wouldn’t be expected to have much evidence for a guy who led a handful of people around for a few years.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:You're certainly given it a good stir with that one. On the former remark, you can only possibly be referring to people who are religious. I believe that Jesus was real. I was raised a Christian too, but I'm not religious and do not claim to be a part of any special club. I certainly can't bring myself to believe that he was the son of someone I don't believe exists - hence I'm not religious.

The second remark is incredibly intolerant. Can someone explain the difference between a religion, a cult, and a cultural interest? I like to think of a religion as a cult with a dead leader or figurehead, but really it's up to the spectator. You think some some religions are invalid, and hence you call them cults. I don't think any differently about Christianity where its practices are questionable - like fundamentalist Christianity. Cult and self-interest is written all over it.

On the former remark, you're right, I was unclear on this. What I meant were people who don't follow any belief system, or choose not to for whatever reason. They have the attitude of, "So what? I don't follow that guy."

To me, a cult is a money/power-oriented group disguised as religion. And yes, that makes me intolerant. And yes, many Christian organizations have fallen under that definition over the years.

No true Christian would practice serial killings and that's a fact.

G

No moral atheist would practise serial killings. No sane person would practise serial killings. Christianity has nothing to do with it.

Green Blow Fly wrote:No true Christian would practice serial killings and that's a fact.

G

Do you mean serial murders, or serial killings? Because plenty of Christians throughout history have been serial killers, but very few would have considered themselves serial murderers.

dogma wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
The second remark is incredibly intolerant. Can someone explain the difference between a religion, a cult, and a cultural interest?

A religion is a set of beliefs.

A cult is a group structured by a common belief in something physical, typically a person.

A cult can be religious, but it doesn't have to be.

A cultural interest is an interest guided by membership in a cult.

That's not an explanation of difference. By your first definition, you've said that everything is religious, annulling your third point, as well as the first of Iorek's statements I referred to. You didn't even come close to addressing the broad term 'cult' on your second point, and by 'cultural interest' I meant the interests of a group, not necessarily tied by a structured belief system. For example, the population of a state. If you're going to generalise, every proud citizen of Nebraska worships the same physical piece of dirt, but that doesn't come close to making them a 'cult' as a whole. If you are saying so, then you must at least admit that most cults are integral parts of societal structure, and not even close to being 'bad things'. If you're going to generalise that hard, you must admit that there is no difference between any of them. If that's still the point you're leaning toward... thanks for making mine.

I know that not all people who believes in the Republican party would be Christians, but the majority would be at least akin to methods of athiest Zionists. If we want to think of being 'Republican' as a religious thing, then everyone who hides racism and bigotry behind Americanized [sic] Christian 'family values' subscribes to its tenets.

Green Blow Fly wrote:No true Christian would practice serial killings and that's a fact.

G

Of course it’s a fact, it’s completely impossible that it could be wrong. The definition excludes anyone that might otherwise break the rule.

Did you read my post, do you see what you’re doing? You’re saying that ‘true Christians’, who are defined as Christians who haven’t done anything really bad, have never done anything completely bad. It’s a completely circular argument you’re making.

The classic example of this is a Scots fellow reading the paper, and he notices a grizzly murder had taken place in Scotland. He says ‘no Scotsman could do such a thing’. Next day he opens the paper to find out the murder was committed by a Glaswegian, and now he says ‘no True Scotsman could ever have done such a thing’. It’s funny because he’s modified his rule to exclude anyone that would otherwise break his rule. He ends up satisfied that he’s right, although to do that he’s left with a completely silly rule.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
That's not an explanation of difference. By your first definition, you've said that everything is religious, annulling your third point, as well as the first of Iorek's statements I referred to.

No, not everything is religious by that definition. A single belief is not necessarily religious unless it is addressed only as a component of a larger set of beliefs. Even in that circumstance religion may not be an appropriate descriptor, but it would be a valid descriptor.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
You didn't even come close to addressing the broad term 'cult' on your second point,

The broad term 'cult' is defined as formal veneration. When differentiating between a cult, and a religion, the line is drawn in physicality.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
and by 'cultural interest' I meant the interests of a group, not necessarily tied by a structured belief system.

All groups are tied to a structured set of beliefs. There may be more structure, or less structure, but if there is no structure there is no group.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
For example, the population of a state. If you're going to generalise, every proud citizen of Nebraska worships the same physical piece of dirt, but that doesn't come close to making them a 'cult' as a whole.

But their citizenship isn't defined by the dirt, its defined by the state. Every citizen of Nebraska believes in the state of Nebraska, and the state of Nebraska is not just a physical piece of dirt. It is an organized, written, set of laws and regulations that could be validly described as a cult. It would not be an appropriate description, but it would be a valid description.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
If you are saying so, then you must at least admit that most cults are integral parts of societal structure, and not even close to being 'bad things'. If you're going to generalise that hard, you must admit that there is no difference between any of them. If that's still the point you're leaning toward... thanks for making mine.

I never made a point to begin with, so I don't really understand what you're trying to get at. But had I done so my point would have been that cults are harmful to the degree that they prevent an accurate understanding of the physical world. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with being a member of a cult. There is something intrinsically wrong with being a member of a cult that believes an alien mother-ship is coming to collect the souls of the chosen after they depart the material world by consuming cyanide laced Kool-Aid.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
I know that not all people who believes in the Republican party would be Christians, but the majority would be at least akin to methods of athiest Zionists. If we want to think of being 'Republican' as a religious thing, then everyone who hides racism and bigotry behind Americanized [sic] Christian 'family values' subscribes to its tenets.

Where did I indicate that I wanted to think of the term Republican as a religious one? And what are the methods of Atheist Zionists?

^ Could you re-phrase that? I don't follow?
(Huh?)

My apologies. Although I still hold to my view thatthe original intent of the original article is a hit piece, and that threads attacking people's beliefs should be done, if at all, very delicately, I reacted harshly against posters here.

Quick ! Whilst he's showing weakness ! get him !

You're cool daddio, don't sweat it.

Weakness...me? Just had a moment after looking at my Jr. High yearbook photo

You were a looker even then. Mrs. Frazzled-- and her guide dog-- are clearly both very lucky.

I jest of course. We all know the camera was yet to be invented....

reds8n wrote: You were a looker even then. Mrs. Frazzled-- and her guide dog-- are clearly both very lucky.

I jest of course. We all know the camera was yet to be invented....

I have no problem with believing that God guided evolution (is that the theistic evolution viewpoint) I do feel that the recreation described in Genesis 1:2 after the original creation (Genesis 1:1) was destroyed by the war in heaven and the fall of Lucifer torpedoes the Young Earth viewpoint of your more hard line creationists.

dogma wrote:

olympia wrote:

Historians that study the first followers of Jesus refer to the "Jesus Movement." The term Christianity is reserved for subsequent developments.

Yeah, like most religions Christianity began as a cult.

Christianity and Judaism started as ways of memorizing stars, seasons and such. (Much like the zorastrian Cthulu type religion it was developed from). Cult or not though I don't know.

namegoeshere wrote:
Christianity and Judaism started as ways of memorizing stars, seasons and such. (Much like the zorastrian Cthulu type religion it was developed from). Cult or not though I don't know.

Well, Judaism has a history concurrent with Zoroastrianism. They heavily influence each other during the Babylonian exile, but one did not beget the other. But you are right, Judaism did arise as the belief system of a given group of people as defined by their linguistic referents. Christianity, though, began as what was essentially the cult of Jesus. It became Christianity sometime after his death, and began to deal in cosmology after being adopted by Roman Empire.

Zoroastrianism and Cthulu are connected?!? My god, it makes sense now.

Judiasm is a tribal religion, Christianity is not, to simplify and expand on Dogma's position. Because Dogma loves it when I do that.

Its kind of an acquired taste, like high school cafeteria pizza.