God vs Science

[Tangerine]

why do people assume all, or even most, or even more than a small fucking minority of Christians oppose evolution?

Virtually every mainline church either endorses evolution, or is neutral.

I really hate the fundies for completely ruining the image of religion - forgetting that it was Christianity and Islam that essentially preserved what was left of Greco-Roman learning, as well as led the way in science, math, philosophy, and so forth.

Why blame fundies? Actually, why blame others? Christians only have themselves to blame.

While yes, I believe fundamentalist Christians make zero sense and that they put a negative image for Christians overall, I think it's immature to just say "they ruined the image of religion" and live on with it. This is precisely what is wrong with Christians nowadays anyway.

Secondly, nice strawman. Why does it matter if it was Christianity that preserved Greco-Roman learning? Okay, they had monks who copied shit down, but so what? They did good things for society and bad things for society, but in the end, that is completely irrelevant to the point of Christianity. Who cares what "Christianity" has done? That is completely irrelevant to faith.

If you're going to talk about Christianity, screw what other people think, screw the concept of "images". Just live your life as a Christian, and if you're worrying about "images of Christian" then you're missing the entire damn point - if you're worried that "people won't believe because of this", don't worry about it. If you actually lived according to what the Bible is trying to teach, then that should be able to overcome any "bias" and give credibility to what you are saying.

Fundamentalists? Who cares? They're a result of what the real root of issues is - organized religion.

Oh, and secondly, most Christians oppose evolution, no matter how you justify it, regardless of what the Pope may say or not. Go talk to any Christian over 35 or any Christian under 16 and ask if they believe in creationism and I guarantee 90% will say yes.

Anyway, about the OP - it's ridiculous, it's stupid, and it's contrived, what else is there to say? It's another one of those self affirming bullshit Christians enjoy spewing out to make themselves feel better instead of you know... actually having faith in God...

If believing in God was rational then we'd all be Christians by now. The thing is... it's not. In fact, there's many parts even in the Bible that implies that faith is frigging "irrational". It only becomes "rational" only after you accept the irrational bits - but that doesn't save it from it being completely and utterly irrational.

 

[PeteDHeat]

The student fails.

 

[Polis4rule]

Oh, and secondly, most Christians oppose evolution, no matter how you justify it, regardless of what the Pope may say or not. Go talk to any Christian over 35 or any Christian under 16 and ask if they believe in creationism and I guarantee 90% will say yes.

That's odd, as I live in the South and all the people I know and their parents believe in evolution.

 

[Alpha/Omega]

Please. You are a gay atheist. That's two strikes against you right there.

Man, given everything that religion makes immoral, it's not a stretch to say that we're all sinners :(

Wow. Just.... fuck. This is easily the most conceited ignorant post in the entire thread.

I'm going to post my position on this entire subject.

Christianity is not the same thing it used to be. To start out:

The Bible is, for all intents and purposes, a storybook. The word itself means book. It is the central religious text of christianity, and it's my opinion that it was not written with the intention of being taken as fact.

Christians who believe in the Bible are naive and ignorant. Is it really plausible to believe that a virgin woman can become pregnant without any evidence or means of impregnation? Did God really provide us with the physical means to achieve orgasm without having to engage in reproduction, but label it a sin even though it has no negative influence on anyone? This question can also be asked of homosexuality.

I'm going to post some things I read from at least two different sources. Feel free to research and prove me wrong.

- Mary was not implicitly a virgin. The Bible has been adapted several times, each in a different language through time (a bad case of chinese whispers.) The term "The Virgin Mary" in its original archaic state could be taken to mean the maiden mary, essentially a kind hearted, young innocent woman, who was seen as the quintessential best kind of person fit to bear the son of God.

- Joseph was a handyman/jack of all trades, not specifically a carpenter.

- The Bible does not state that masturbation is a sin. I'm a little foggy on the details, and if someone could link me to the relevant passage, that'd be great. The basic idea is that (whoever it was that spilled his seed upon the ground, I thought it was Cain) angered God not because he had ejaculated, but because it was an act of contempt, with the intention to waste a possible life.

- I have one more on homosexuality, but I really don't know enough about what happened to say I know what I'm talking about.

A true Christian, in my opinion, will read the Bible and use it as a "conscience", reflecting upon the mistakes of the characters, remembering to abide by the 10 commandments and taking comfort in that fact that they are good christians, and by extent, good people. By 10 commandments, I mean the basic 10; don't murder or steal ect. It's common sense really.

Religious organizations have commandeered christianity and turned it into a cult. A priest might hate homosexuals for example. Popular consenus says that God does too! Whoo! that's so great for the priest! He has the power to influence people! He can preach his opinion to them, back it up with the Bible, and cleanse the world of these gay scum he so hates. Sunday school is a great opportunity for him to indoctrinate the kids too! Wacko!

There's another priest somewhere whose church is slipping under financially. He's noticed that the collection plate has been kinda empty lately. He has no idea why though, everyone knows that those who give more money please God! How are you supposed to get into heaven if you neglect the very place that allows you to practice your religion?!

Don't laugh at that last one. I remember a while ago that one clergyman had convinced a family to donate their life savings to their church. All of it. They were so blinded by "faith" that they allowed themselves to be tricked into a scam. God didn't need their money. The priest did so he could buy himself that shiny new car, or go on that nice vacation he'd waited so long for.

I'm sure you've all heard the stories of gay kids born into christian families. The ones who kill themselves out of confused despair.

Religion can rip families apart. Some of these parents are so ignorant that they would choose their religion over their own children. "Fuck maternal instincts and love, a child born against the word of the lord has no place in MY house!" The sad part is that once you flesh it out, this all just the opinion of some old man.

It's not just catholicism either. Everyone knows how fucked up scientology is. Muslims form gangs and attack people for insulting their honor too.

Religion is a social stigma. You can't question it. You can't question someone's faith without being rude. You can't stop people from doing whatever they believe in. They can sue you, and chances are you'd lose.

I don't hate religion, I hate the religious organisations who twist it into something else and use it to empower themselves. God doesn't exist. Religious authorities have made him exist because it's convenient for them.

I'm an atheist. I'm bisexual, and completely comfortable with it. I sin all the time. I'm not going to hell. My morality isn't lacking in any way either. I believe in family, being kind to others, nonviolence ect. I want to be a good person, and I feel happy knowing that I am.

I don't need religion. I never have.

 

[Glen]

Wow. Just.... fuck. This is easily the most conceited ignorant post in the entire thread.

brain was being sardonic, silly!


anyways i am not going to adress the ridiculous scientist/atheist strawman party that is the OP, but i will comment on religion as motivation for morality.

it's not. to say it is not only ridiculous, but hideously offensive. the whole 'believing that every other religion except your own is going to hell' thing is fairly tired, but adding the idea of religion as the only source of righteousness introduces an even stupider problem: people who follow other religions are moralistic, much more so than atheists, but they are still going to hell. sorry guys! at least dismissing followers of every other religion as being as hell-bound as the common atheist only makes you look like an asshole, the idea that other religions are moral and just but still just not good enough to escape hell makes God kinda look like a prick!

but to continue, let's say religion is the only way to discern right from wrong. were i to follow a religion where the main precepts are eating babies, would that make me a more righteous person than an atheist? what if i independently developed ideologies that exactly mirror everything in the bible except the whole fear of God/eternal damnation stuff? would i be amoral?

 

[Alpha/Omega]

brain was being sardonic, silly!

I know, I know. It was pretty stupid though.

Glen, different religions can coexist. They have to be practiced properly, but a christian shouldn't believe that muslims will burn in hell. They have their own beliefs, which shouldn't get in the way of yours. This is what I was saying about ignorance.

I do agree that trying to juxtapose religion and science as alternatives is stupid though.

 

[Force Majeure]

The Bible is, for all intents and purposes, a storybook. The word itself means book. It is the central religious text of christianity, and it's my opinion that it was not written with the intention of being taken as fact.

Christians who believe in the Bible are naive and ignorant. Is it really plausible to believe that a virgin woman can become pregnant without any evidence or means of impregnation? Did God really provide us with the physical means to achieve orgasm without having to engage in reproduction, but label it a sin even though it has no negative influence on anyone? This question can also be asked of homosexuality.

The funny thing is that what I've highlighted is actually very true from a critical standpoint. It's impossible to believe in the Bible literally because there are so many things about it that don't make sense. For hundreds of years, people were able to pass this off much as the student in the OP did: theological tap-dancing. Here are some questions I like to ask people about the Bible who believe it literally is the Word of God, and ones that are not difficult to answer:

1) What time did Jesus die?
2) Was Jesus upset about dying, or was he courageous?
3) When was the Gospel of John written? How about Revelation?
4) When was the Christian Canon (Bible) compiled and agreed upon?
5) How many manuscripts/pieces of manuscripts do we have of the books in the New Testament?
6) Do all of these manuscripts agree with each other?
7) Where is the Trinity explained in the New Testament/when was it written there?

It's really the tip of the iceberg in terms of uncovering the really human history behind the Bible, but it sheds some light. Other than these obvious answers, there are several other oddities in the Bible that I would love to go into, but I'd rather not monopolize the thread.

It's not just catholicism either.

D'awww. I was Catholic for a while. It's not too bad. :)
Scientology, on the other hand... hmm...

 

[Brain]

I know, I know. It was pretty stupid though.

Yeah, I must say that all by itself it is pretty lacking. I probably should have typed up a couple long thoughtful paragraphs before that, so that a whole post wouldn't be wasted just doing a relatively harmless tongue in cheek jab at some Christians who actually do think that way.

Edit: the irony that this post right here is actually nothing more than a jab does not escape me. Well, it did, until I posted it.

 

[Mr.378]

I will admit, this story was better than I expected. Nice.

 

[Deck Knight]

I was going to bail out as soon as I saw Deck Knight post, but I saw this......which is spot on for the most part. The ending is a little incorrect. He sort of goes back on what he said at the beginning and outright attacks "the other side" with a snide remark. But you know, ignoring that, good post.

And then this happened......and I made a sad face =(

None of the specifics I mentioned about limitations imposed on society as a result of the questionable religious belief that temperature trails carbon rather than the reverse are remotely unfounded. You know how you can spot a cult? When the cult leader is the only one who doesn't partake of the kool-aid. Thus my link to Bono asking "Father Al" to "forgive his eco sins." And you wonder why I call it a cult? These people don't take themselves seriously, why should I?

Then this happened.... Yes. People without religion have no morals! This is extremely close-minded. I've already stated in another thread, to you no less, that I am agnostic yet absolutely have morals. Society imposes morals on us. I don't go to Church or the Temple to learn "morals". Hell, I can't because in my parents' religion, the priest talks in Sanskrit.

My technical argument is that without an other-centered foundation (preferably in an other with no immediate temporal goals), individual morals are fungible, not nonexistent. Sure, it's great that you do good works. What baseline do you use for calling them good? What moral basis do you have to argue against someone else who follows their own personal moral code and spends their life as a thief and con-man? Without an absolute and relatively stable moral center, "right" and "wrong" become entirely subjective and therefore meaningless distinctions.

---

The reason Science disregards Religion is because Religion holds Science back. I'm not saying that in a "lol religion sux" sort of way. I'm saying this as it's the truth. You can explain any phenomena with "God did it".

While there is an element of this in specific religiously based theories, most religions do not set out to solve mundane issues like "why is grass green and the sky blue." Not anymore anyway. Religion provided an organized framework for early societies to allow them to focus on more important tasks. Was there probably an inordinate amount of time "wasted" in prayer and reflection? Possibly. But where there are people there is exchange of ideas.

However, that's not what creates scientific advancement. You must disregard an all-powerful otherworldly being or we'd be cavemen. Gravity? We obviously each have a personal angel holding us down to the ground! Not a useful way to go about ways to defy gravity. Science cannot tell us to do something, as Deck Knight pointed out in his only rational paragraph in this topic. It can merely state what is observable. Sometimes these observations change. We thought the Earth was flat, after further investigation, we found out it wasn't.

Aside from small bits of hyperbole in snark paragraphs, all my paragraphs have a rational flow from one end to the other. Disagreement with a principle does not make that principle irrational, a preponderance of evidence invalidating its conclusion(s) does.

My way of doing things is easier. If I don't understand it, it's magic =D Like computers!

In my computer's case, it must be Black Magic x_x.

Good lord this thread has a lot of amateur theological analysis. I'll have to draft up a response to Alpha/Omega now too arrrrrrrg.(honaut) Maybe later.

 

[Firestorm]

My technical argument is that without an other-centered foundation (preferably in an other with no immediate temporal goals), individual morals are fungible, not nonexistent. Sure, it's great that you do good works. What baseline do you use for calling them good? What moral basis do you have to argue against someone else who follows their own personal moral code and spends their life as a thief and con-man? Without an absolute and relatively stable moral center, "right" and "wrong" become entirely subjective and therefore meaningless distinctions.

The same applies to religion, which is my point. Religion is just like any other moral centre.

While there is an element of this in specific religiously based theories, most religions do not set out to solve mundane issues like "why is grass green and the sky blue." Not anymore anyway. Religion provided an organized framework for early societies to allow them to focus on more important tasks. Was there probably an inordinate amount of time "wasted" in prayer and reflection? Possibly. But where there are people there is exchange of ideas.

You're misunderstanding. I do not mean it in that way. A scientist can easily have faith. I am saying that you must separate religion from science. Using God to explain observable phenomena is a cop-out and would be detrimental to technological advancement. A Physicist can be a Christian. That's fine. But God is not an acceptable hypothesis - let alone an acceptable theory.

 

[Great Sage]

That's odd, as I live in the South and all the people I know and their parents believe in evolution.

Florida, particularly the I-4 corridor and points to the south, is culturally idiosyncratic and really not representative of the South as a whole. It's significantly more cosmopolitan thanks to transplants from places like New York City. For example, Florida is only 9% Baptist (of which conservative Southern Baptism is a smaller denomination), while a generically Southern state like Mississippi is about 32% Southern Baptist, and Florida also has a substantial nonreligious body.

 

[Slice]

The Bible is a reference to God already. If you don't believe it, the Bible is the most popular "religion book" to predict the future the most. The fact that the Bible predicts futures, shows the existance of God.

what has the bible predicted?
I need examples.


The bible itself contradicts its teaching and way of life. Also, as stated earlier, the bible has been translated countless times. Meaning of words can change.

 

[Brain]

My technical argument is that without an other-centered foundation (preferably in an other with no immediate temporal goals), individual morals are fungible, not nonexistent. Sure, it's great that you do good works. What baseline do you use for calling them good? What moral basis do you have to argue against someone else who follows their own personal moral code and spends their life as a thief and con-man? Without an absolute and relatively stable moral center, "right" and "wrong" become entirely subjective and therefore meaningless distinctions.

Religion gives you no moral basis to argue against an atheist, though, so you've still got the same problem. "What you are doing is wrong because God said so" is not a basis for argument and "God will send you to hell if you do this" is no better an argument than "I'll beat the shit out of you with this wrench if you do this". Furthermore, the stability of a set of morals is no indicator of its quality. I'd rather have whimsical morality that tells me slavery is wrong most of the time than an absolute and stable morality that condones it and sets up a strict hierarchization of human races, for example (especially if I am not at the top of it) (I'm not saying any religion does this, it's just an example).

Also note that there is still no argument as to whether that moral center actually exists, only an argument that people should believe it does and that it provides, for these people, a stable basis to argue between themselves. And as far as I can tell, that's false. People are perfectly capable of devising decent moral systems by themselves (and sometimes they call them religions...).

 

[Luduan]

My technical argument is that without an other-centered foundation (preferably in an other with no immediate temporal goals), individual morals are fungible, not nonexistent. Sure, it's great that you do good works. What baseline do you use for calling them good? What moral basis do you have to argue against someone else who follows their own personal moral code and spends their life as a thief and con-man? Without an absolute and relatively stable moral center, "right" and "wrong" become entirely subjective and therefore meaningless distinctions.

Divine Command Theory, which seems to be the position you advocate, is still a subjective moral framework. Granted, it is the subjective moral opinion of God that is in question, but it is nevertheless subjective. You seem to basically accept the Is-Ought problem, while stating that God somehow overcomes the gap. The contradiction here is obvious; you are using God as an 'is' to derive a normative 'ought'. That is, you claim that since God exists, one should obey his commands. This is-to-ought elision still falls prey to Hume's argument. (Please note that the validity of his argument is irrelevant at the moment; I am merely asking for consistency on your part.) Besides, having accepted Divine Command Theory, you still have the Euthypro dilemma to answer. Of course, perhaps you are simply holding religion in general up as a moral framework, which leaves me to wonder if you believe other religions capable of providing an 'absolute and relatively stable moral center'. After all, under Orthodox Christian doctrines (heterodox understandings complicate matters unnecessarily for this present discussion), not all religions can be 'true' by definition, implying they are necessarily constructed by humans. How is this any different than claiming that state morality provides a firm moral foundation?

 

[Brocks rock hard cock]

OP's whole post is riddled with smug christian condescension. It reminds me of when my grandfather would say "IF WE HAVE EVOLUTION WHY DO WE NEED PLANES? WHY NOT JUST EVOLVE WINGS???".

I miss that old troll.

 

[possession999]

Glen, different religions can coexist. They have to be practiced properly, but a christian shouldn't believe that muslims will burn in hell. They have their own beliefs, which shouldn't get in the way of yours. This is what I was saying about ignorance.

As a Catholic, we believe that different religions can get into heaven. Lets say their is a devout Muslim, Jew, or Hinduist and they try to lead a good moral life and have not had Christianity presented to them in a productive way they will get to heaven.

 

[Brocks rock hard cock]

As a Catholic, we believe that different religions can get into heaven. Lets say their is a devout Muslim, Jew, or Hinduist and they try to lead a good moral life and have not had Christianity presented to them in a productive way they will get to heaven.

Then why present them Catholicism in the first place unless you're deliberately trying to stop them getting into heaven which seems like an asshole move on your part.

 

[KnightoftheWind]

Evil = Lack of God?

So if you kill someone in the name of God, it's apparantly perfectly OK. That's what the student's logic tells me.

 

[asim]

Evil = Lack of God?

So if you kill someone in the name of God, it's apparantly perfectly OK. That's what the student's logic tells me.

That's why Catholics can just brush off the whole Crusades thing.

 

[possession999]

That's why Catholics can just brush off the whole Crusades thing.

No, Christains were defending themselves. In the year 637 under the leadership of Caliph Omar muslims captured Jerusalem. This was just one of the Muslims' conquests around this time. Caliph was pretty tolerant of Christianity and Judaism.

Things were fine until the later part of the 11th century when the Turks took over Jerusalem. This leader was not so tolerant. He attacked Christain pilgrims and sacred shines in the city. He was vicious.

The Christains and the Pope in Europe realized what they were doing and had to stop it. Thus, started the Crusades.

 

[Zach]

The student's argument is flawed. Evolution has been observed first off, meaning A) the professor is quite ignorant of what he is teaching or B) this story is BS. Me thinks the latter.

The main argument:
Dark = Lack of light
Cold = Lack of heat
Evil = Lack of God

Here's the problem: Light and Heat are observable, and therefore we can be aware of their absence. However, God is not observable, and therefore the student has no grounds on which to justifiably prescribe "God" as the explanation of evil. However, there is something that humans do know of and its absence would explain evil; lack of morality.

To above poster: There was more than one crusade first off; second off, christianity is still responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, genocide of the Native Americans (non-Americans read: look up "Manifest Destiny"), Salem and European Witch hunts, as well as countless un-recorded persecutions of religious minorities throughout history

 

[Invishil]

Wow there are a lot of other atheists here apparently

GOO ATHEISTS!!! Lol may as well cheer on bad jokes while i'm at it...

 

[possession999]

No Christianity is not responsible for the genocide of native americans, the witch hunts, the Spanish inquisition, or the persecutions of religious minorities. Christians are, no where in the Bible does it say those things are permissible. Christians can make mistakes even in the name of God.

Ok, the second crusades were started by Turks and once again Christians wanted to stop it. The turks took the city of Edessa in 1146 and most of the Christian population was slaughtered or sold into slavery. So, they started fighting but nobody got anywhere.

The third crusade was started by sultan of egypt Saladin. He was a very proud Muslim and hostile toward unbelievers he recaptured Jerusalem for the Muslims in 1187. It ended in a truce between Saladin and King Richard. The deal was that Christians could visit Jerusalem and its holy places without paying tribute.

The fourth Crusade was another attempt to capture Jerusalem from the Muslims....

Same with the fifth.....

But the last 4 crusades were not started by the Pope.
The sixth was started by Emperor Fredrick the second.
The seventh and eighth was started by King Louis the ninth.
The ninth by Prince Edward.

 

[Eraddd]

No, Christains were defending themselves. In the year 637 under the leadership of Caliph Omar muslims captured Jerusalem. This was just one of the Muslims' conquests around this time. Caliph was pretty tolerant of Christianity and Judaism.

Things were fine until the later part of the 11th century when the Turks took over Jerusalem. This leader was not so tolerant. He attacked Christain pilgrims and sacred shines in the city. He was vicious.

The Christains and the Pope in Europe realized what they were doing and had to stop it. Thus, started the Crusades.

WHere's the evidence.

Oh right, Catholics sure did no wrong. Sacking Constantinople, raping it's inhabitants, going on Crusades for fame and glory rather than religious reasons, oh hell yes.

There was no justification for crusades after the first or second crusade after the caliph agreed to let Christians and Jews into Jerusalem. Hell, it was just the Roman Catholic Church waving it's dick around, shoving it into every other religion's face.

I'm Christian for the record.

Edit: Taken from Wikipedia because I lost my other sources:

In 1187, Saladin, Sultan of Egypt, recaptured Jerusalem, following the Battle of Hattin. After taking Jerusalem back from the Christians, the Muslims spared civilians and for the most part left churches and shrines untouched to be able to collect ransom money from the Franks.Saladin is remembered respectfully in both European and Islamic sources as a man who "always stuck to his promise and was loyal.

Where does the vicious Caliph come in? I'm sorry, but I'm doing a freaken research paper on this topic, and Saladin in the beginning treated all Muslims and Christians alike. Only in the end, he got really angry at the Christians for pissing him off day and night, so he started sending "message" to them to stop, which include soldiers with dismembered body parts, etc etc.