Darwin's "Origin of Species" with shit on top.

[Aaron Smith]

I'm glad that you guys all care about this matter and have taken the time to actually investigate your positions. Obviously, that's far better than being apathetic to the whole subject, which far too many "average thinkers" are. However, as one of the few Christians on this forum, I think you guys are missing a few key things which can be game changers when having this conversation.

I totally understand why all you guys are so easily agitated by Christians, who are known to shun compelling scientific evidence and deny common sense on this subject. I think if any Christian is going to engage in serious dialogue over it, the very least they could do is to first give it an honest consideration. Most Christians don't do this, which is what provides the fuel for your anger and causes you all to say such harsh things about Christians. However, I think you guys are far too easily falling into this idea of Christians as a whole being absolutely inbred, stupid, schizophrenic, insane, idiotic people when in fact they are not. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of Christians are kind, upstanding people who are not interested in finger-pointing and gloating, but who would much rather act as a force of love in the world in the way that Jesus did. The absolute bottom-line purpose for a Christian is to act like and to obey like Jesus, which is hard for even secular thinkers to argue against. This is the focus and purpose of a Christian, which explains the vast majority of "ignorance" on the subject of evolution. Based on my life-long experience of being around other Christians, Christians as a whole fit into the category of being merely uninformed, rather than mentally deficient. It is perfectly okay for a Christian to spend his time seeking God and Christ-like behavior rather than seeking an in-depth knowledge of evolutionary science.

However, Christians who remain entirely uninformed and proceed to argue evolutionists cause much more harm than good. It is painfully obvious to me how irritating it must be for someone to spend their entire life studying the earth and the science that surrounds it, only to have a Christian come along and tell them that everything they believe is wrong. To quote Francis Collins:

After all, we have laws and theories and ways of understanding things and if God is real, He must be the author of them, so He shouldn't be threatened by them. Right?

SO many Christians completely miss this point. But likewise, I think you are all missing this point as well.

To continue the quote from Francis Collins:

After all, we have laws and theories and ways of understanding things and if God is real, He must be the author of them, so He shouldn't be threatened by them. Right? We have the tools of science to understand nature and the tools of faith to understand God and our relationship to Him. Then you're in the best of all places. You can bring together that scientific world view and the spiritual world view into a harmony and that harmony seems to have escaped an awful lot of these polarized debates. It would be my hope that we can bring those back together.

Or St. Augustine (a brilliant guy) in 415 AD:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

I know this will sound like a cop-out to many of you, but it is entirely possible that God used the mechanism of evolution as a means of creating life. Why would it not be possible? If anything, it would give us created beings a tangible way to see just how much bigger and more magnificent God is than we ourselves are.

Francis Collins has actually debated Richard Dawkins on this matter, which is what drew me into the whole subject to begin with. I was one of the Christians who was uninformed of evolution, not because I'm mentally deficient, but because it just simply didn't matter in terms of being able to serve God. But once I understood the damage that can be caused by Christians when one asserts things about the world that are at odds with science, I gained a new interest in science altogether.

From the Wikipedia (taken from the debate):

During a debate with the biologist Richard Dawkins, Collins stated that God is the explanation of those features of the universe that science finds difficult to explain (such as the values of certain physical constants favoring life), and that God himself does not need an explanation since he is beyond the universe. Dawkins called this "the mother and father of all cop-outs" and "an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain", to which Collins responded "I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as 'Why am I here?', 'What happens after we die?' If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion."

Have any of you ever even given thought to the notion that evolution could have been God's mechanism for creating life, or that God simply cannot be entirely explained by science? I mean, what kind of God would He even be if we could understand everything about Him through scientific study?

 

[ParsonsMatt]

Have any of you ever even given thought to the notion that evolution could have been God's mechanism for creating life, or that God simply cannot be entirely explained by science? I mean, what kind of God would He even be if we could understand everything about Him through scientific study?

That would make him real.

EDIT:

To elaborate, if he can be understood through scientific study, he would have to exist in the material world and exhibit some effect on something. Most people do not believe that God is a physical entity but rather something that exists "beyond" our universe. Humans are 100% material -- there is no component of a human that exists outside of the material, physical, real universe. Anything that exists outside of the universe can't possibly matter ( pun not intended ) because it can have no effect on material beings. Likewise, since it can't interact with the physical world, there is no way to detect it, and its impossible to know anything about it.

It is certainly possible to imagine, and wish, and believe, but it is impossible to know.

 

[SocialNumb]

Have any of you ever even given thought to the notion that evolution could have been God's mechanism for creating life, or that God simply cannot be entirely explained by science? I mean, what kind of God would He even be if we could understand everything about Him through scientific study?

The notion that you consider a "god" at all is no good explanation for the unknown.



Evolution still stands.

Redefine "God"

 

[JBroll]

Aaron, the point is that most of us just consider that hypothesis unnecessary.

Jeff

 

[Erkan]

I sometimes think about religion in the way that... like... ok I'm drunk but I can still write! Anyway, I think about it like, what if parents and shit didn't pass religion onto their children? If religion is truly meant to be a part of humanity, it should somehow come by itself to each and every person. One should'nt have to be brain fucked by it to get into it, you know what I'm saying?

 

[Altitudes]

^The problem with that argument is that I can apply that to any form of education "But I don't wann get brainfucked by physics and biology" lol I get what you are saying, but the main issue with religion is whether it is factually correct and worthwhile to pass on. Also, not too many people ask why a god is even necessary.

To the wall of text aaron smith typed: god of the gaps argument.

God simply cannot be entirely explained by science? I mean, what kind of God would He even be if we could understand everything about Him through scientific study?

I might as well scream into a pillow. God needs to be hidden for us, master creater of all? hahahaa peek a boo god, YOU FAIL

And to imply god used evolution and natural selection as a machinism of his creation is lolworthy. Natural selection is a blindwatch maker, and to say god uses natural selection would make god a murder and advocate of fucktarded and not well thought out nature and biological behavior. Nature is a terible source of morals and bad example of intelligent design.

I have been getting my drink on as well, with some whiskey on the rocks. They difference between cheap whiskey and quality whiskey is like night and day.

 

[AdamWathan]

Aaron, the point is that most of us just consider that hypothesis unnecessary.

Jeff

Agreed.

There is no need for a God to explain the universe. Christianity will eventually become obsolete as other religions have in the past. You don't need to complicate things by adding a God to explain them. The simplest answer to something is usually the right answer. If you need to have a God to create the universe than you need something to create God, and if you don't agree that God needs a creator than the universe doesn't need one either. Theism is a primitive and naive concept in general.

To say that God used the mechanics of evolution to create man is totally lame, you can't just manipulate every story that the whole religion is supposed to be based on just to fit in with modern science so you can maintain your feeble grip on the few remaining threads of your beliefs. Either take Christianity at face value or accept that it is wrong and live a good moral life being kind to others and sharing love through the world without needing religion to make you do it. To say God used evolution so we can really marvel at his genius and power is so crazy. It's as crazy as the idea of God putting dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith. Things evolve, deal with it, that's how it is. Maybe we can't explain a lot of things yet but the amount of things we've managed to explain over the years with science that religion was originally used to explain is proof enough that it's only a matter of time before we have a scientific explanation for everything. And when that day comes every Christian is going to look like a jackass but they will just twist their beliefs a little more to include the new science and just throw "God made it that way" onto the end of it. It's completely UNNECESSARY. That's like saying even though I program my alarm clock to go off in the morning, there's a purple giraffe that nobody can see who turns it on and makes the alarm ring to wake me up at whatever time I set the night before. You can never prove to me that the giraffe isn't doing it, it's impossible. But you'll sure think it's absolutely fucking ludicrous.

There is zero justification for believing in Christianity vs any other religion which is what makes the whole concept of religion flawed to me in the first place. There wouldn't be more than one religion if any of them were right. They are all different stories created in different parts of the world based on different circumstances of the people living there in those times.

The whole concept is just silly, there's no specific arguments that even need to be made. It is all just so childish and goofy, it terrifies me that there are people who believe any of it and take it as seriously as they do.

 

[Glenn Fricker]

Have any of you ever even given thought to the notion that evolution could have been God's mechanism for creating life, or that God simply cannot be entirely explained by science? I mean, what kind of God would He even be if we could understand everything about Him through scientific study?

The short answer: yes. But, given there is no empirical evidence whatsoever of the supernatural, the conclusion is the absence of a god.


Counter-question:

Have you ever considered that the bible is the creation of a backwards, superstitious culture that couldn't properly explain the world around it?

The people who wrote it didn't even understand basic physical principles like gravity or thermodynamics, never crossed an ocean, never flew an aircraft. Yet we're expected to believe that they had knowledge & dialogue with the 'so called' creator of the universe, and the bible is the end-all, be-all instruction book for life.

Sorry, but that's absurd.

 

[Ermz]

These are the times I miss Satori. He had a way of closing these threads in one massive, epic post, absolutely cementing the dominance of atheism as only he could.

I'm still deeply disturbed by the fact that such a large percentage of the world need an authoritative bible from a supposed creator to establish their moral code. You shouldn't need the idea of Jesus to make you a good, loving person. A simple understanding of human interactions, and the inevitability of what goes around to come around is enough to understand the merits of living as a good, honorable person.

 

[TheWinterSnow]

The people who wrote it didn't even understand basic physical principles like gravity or thermodynamics, never crossed an ocean, never flew an aircraft. Yet we're expected to believe that they had knowledge & dialogue with the 'so called' creator of the universe, and the bible is the end-all, be-all instruction book for life.

that's the thing that always got me, most of the superstitions or stories were ways of older cultures explaining the unknown (or what was "supernatural" to them). Even if that weren't the case why would they know about the word of "god" as well as the answers to the universe that we today still have not grasped when those cultures could not grasp the technology we have today? Its saying a culture that is technologically behind us knowing more about the universe than us? Sounds like a very large contradiction.

Also what seems to be the common ground for most religions is their common god, which has very similar traits. The story of Jesus is dated all the way back to Ancient Sumeria about 4000 years before the so accused death of Jesus, the Egyptians told it, the Hindi told it and the Native Americans said the same thing (even though they had no contact with the world outside the Americas pre-Vikings/Columbus. When that information was discovered the Christians claimed that Lucifer anticipated the birth of Jesus and passed down that information to pre-christian cultures to make Christianity appear be a fraud. What sounds like a fraud is their excuse for their plagiarism. Anyway to my point, prior to the Renaissance before the average folk could read or write, all stories were passed down by the word of mouth. After the story is passed down enough times, it becomes corrupted from the original story, the most prime example is modern urban legends which have small differences from culture to culture (the Chinese version will be substantially different than the American version). The first version of the bible was written 800 years AFTER the supposed death of Jesus, no one that witnessed Jesus was alive by that time and the stories had never been written down until that time, that can account for huge changes in a very simple story, one that the originating culture knew was false but passed to down to teach moral or any other information about life of that time, including hunting, raising a family etc but over the years the urban legends begin to rise. What makes that harder to prove if Jesus ever existed was that the documented census of Jesus's time was destroyed in the fire, now it was said that it was the Knights Templar who were ordered to destroy them after the people where separating from the church due to having doubts as to whether Jesus had ever existed, that could be however another legend but that could explain the churches rise to power around that same time.

As I said earlier most modern religions focus on one all knowing omnipotent god. With that in mind and very similar stories that have been told in other religions around the world including older extinct religions, it has been estimated that every modern religion came from one source and that is a pretty safe bet to make. The Ancient religions that these stories came from saw the Earth around them, the creatures on it, the solar system and the universe itself as god, though they worshiped god as a person on a spiritual level. Whit what I said earlier, although there isn't definitive proof of it, its fairly safe to say that all religions came from one origin and that origin most likely acknowledged the universe as a whole as a personified entity and over the 6000 years those stories where told the 5000 years they were passed orally only they could have been corrupted to the point where you have many different religions that fit the culture and the point where we can't tell the true stories from the false ones (if there are any true one that is)

 

[TheWinterSnow]

I'm still deeply disturbed by the fact that such a large percentage of the world need an authoritative bible from a supposed creator to establish their moral code. You shouldn't need the idea of Jesus to make you a good, loving person. A simple understanding of human interactions, and the inevitability of what goes around to come around is enough to understand the merits of living as a good, honorable person.

I have thought about that to. I have asked the question why do people need religion. And it comes down to this...people need motivation to live their lives, most are to stubborn or ignorant to be a leader, sheep the themselves need to be lead. And I have noticed this in work groups, most people would rather be lead then lead. They need this authoritative figure, one omnipotent entity to tell them how they should live their life.

It also comes down to this. Most people don't want to come to terms with the fact that life has no meaning and that when we die, that is the end. Also people need incentive to live their lives, such as, they need an award for everything they do. With that in mind in order for most people to live their lives they need a reason, a purpose to do anything and if life had no meaning and death was really the end, then there would be no reason to live your life. The truth of it is that a lot of people truly think that way. The people who generally don't need a reason to live their lives or a reason to do good or a reason to treat people with respect are strong enough as a person to live without a god, they can lead their own lives with their own purpose, they are the leaders not the ones who are led, they march to the beat of their own drum. These people are called Atheists.

See the thing is Christians will say that you need a moral code, well for starters moral code is something that all of us have from birth and its generally universal from all cultures. It was the Egyptians who wrote a list 5 things that everyone needed to do to live a happy moral life, they where actually suggestions, it was modern Christianity that turned them into punishable laws that you were required to do, they also added a few more of them that required to worship god. What was once a standard unspoken moral code that was written down to the public was turned into the 10 commandments. Prior to Christianity we didn't need those rules, they were something that we where born with, its modern religion that leads people to believe that they need an authoritative figure to live their lives, that makes people confused if they are not being lead.

I believe that it is most humans natural tendency to want to be led and need a reason to live that makes religion so popular as it is. Also another reason I remember Dawkins saying is that it gives every human something in common and that it is the human nature to desire familiarity to one another.

 

[JBroll]

I have thought about that to. I have asked the question why do people need religion. And it comes down to this...people need motivation to live their lives, most are to stubborn or ignorant to be a leader, sheep the themselves need to be lead. And I have noticed this in work groups, most people would rather be lead then lead. They need this authoritative figure, one omnipotent entity to tell them how they should live their life.

Authority and omnipotence rarely work together. If what you're saying is true, we need a *far* better leader than an imaginary figure who only speaks through hatemongers and bigots.

It also comes down to this. Most people don't want to come to terms with the fact that life has no meaning and that when we die, that is the end.

This ties directly into what you assumed earlier - it hinges on the belief that most people need to have the meaning of their lives dictated to them, and assumes that very few are capable of determining their own meaning and motivation. I haven't seen the slightest reason to believe this other than that it's bashed into our heads early on - I think it's a self-fulfilling prophesy, not a universal fault of humanity. Further, if such rubbish as religion has to offer is sufficient to make people feel like their lives have meaning, just about *anything* could work in its place. Religion is a lowest common denominator at best, and if you're going to use its methods and satisfy its requirements then just about *any* belief system could do - religion itself could be thrown out the window, as it's almost entirely circumstance that leads to one being picked over the other.

Jeff

 

[26]

Great posts from TheWinterSnow.
The only question left for me on all that is, why purple giraffes are so damned immune against this kind of information.

 

[ahjteam]

the music was nice

 

[poopoohead]

Religion was made by MAN

not 'GODS'


Its all bullshit i think

 

[Harry Hughes]

God dammit, every time I think I'm starting to get a cool head about religion, more bullshit like this shows up and gets me fired up again.

Same here, fucking damn it.

 

[Aaron Smith]

Gaahh, too much to respond to! I can't get to it all in one sitting, and I don't think I can keep up with all of you anyway- not for my inability to respond, but just because I don't have that kind of time.

Have you ever considered that the bible is the creation of a backwards, superstitious culture that couldn't properly explain the world around it?

Absolutely, I have pondered that. And I just don't think the bible could exist as it does if it were simply inspired by men. The book was written over a 1,200 - 1,500 year period (40 generations), in three different languages, by approximately 40 authors located in three different continents. Despite those facts, there is strong continuity throughout it's content- basically the message of man's rebellion and God's redemption. It's not like each writer had the stack of previously written scriptures sitting next to him on the table, and he merely continued writing about the same ideas for the sake of continuing some kind of massive scheme.
Furthermore, in the bible we find encouragement to do that which we do not desire to do naturally, and we are also told to refrain from doing other things which seem natural. This is not the best way to "recruit" people to follow your teachings; wouldn't it make more sense to appeal to one's natural desires and encourage them to follow the desires of their heart, rather than tell them to change it?
The fact that the writers of the bible had little to no understanding of scientific and physical principles is not bothersome to me in the least bit, because the bible is not a scientific textbook. The bible is meant to teach us about our relationship to God, and to teach us how we ought to live. Science plays no role in those things, and is unnecessary in order for God to communicate with us.

To the wall of text aaron smith typed: god of the gaps argument.

Actually, I am not making a "God of the gaps" argument at all. If I were arguing that the origin of the big bang cannot be explained, therefore God did it, that would be such an argument, but that's not what I'm arguing. Rather, I am stating the possibility that God could have used an evolutionary process in order to create and develop all forms of life as we know it. I am suggesting such a possibility, in light of the fact that, if a Creator exists, then science cannot threaten the existence of that Creator. I fail to see how that is a "God of the gaps" argument.

God needs to be hidden for us, master creater of all? hahahaa peek a boo god, YOU FAIL

I would argue that God is not hidden at all, but rather that God has revealed himself through means other than popping his face through the clouds to say "Hi!" to the world. Nature (including the existence of science, mathematics, physics, etc.), God's providence in the world, the human conscience, dreams, bible prophecy, and Jesus Christ are all examples of ways that God has made himself evident. I am certain that none of those things are the scientifically testable evidence that you seek, but what it comes down to is one's willingness to give them honest consideration. If one is unwilling to consider the existence of God without preconceived ideas about how God ought to reveal himself, and if one is unwilling to seek God with an open mind towards the very idea of serving God, then it is of their own choice- not of God's doing - that one does not find God.

Also, if God were to reveal himself so clearly that no one could deny him and all that he says, then there would not be any room left for one to actually choose to love him...and it is a real, chosen relationship with humanity that he desires. I don't think there is anything more that God could do that would change humanity's mind in favor of his existence, short of making it so obvious that we lose our free will to actually choose him. I would love to hear what God would have to do in order for you to believe that he exists.

I'm still deeply disturbed by the fact that such a large percentage of the world need an authoritative bible from a supposed creator to establish their moral code. You shouldn't need the idea of Jesus to make you a good, loving person. A simple understanding of human interactions, and the inevitability of what goes around to come around is enough to understand the merits of living as a good, honorable person.

I don't think any Christian would claim that without the bible they would instead be unkind and immoral; no one claims that a person is doomed to a life of immorality and wretchedness if they don't obey the bible. There is certainly a consistent set of morals that indwell every human being, regardless of one's beliefs (the bible describes this as humanity being "made in the image of God"). And many of those morals are talked about in the bible. However, there are deeper biblical ideas that differ from those more obvious universal morals; appeals to the reader to act counter-intuitively and to go against what feels natural. Paul says to "consider others better than yourselves", (without stipulation, so even those you can hardly put up with). He also says not only to "not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths", but "only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen". Talk about a difficult goal to seek... Jesus tells us not to store up treasures on earth, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also". This is completely against our own natural inclinations to seek material wealth.

I could continue on with "bible hour" , but I'm sure you all would rather that I didn't, and I won't because it's not my intention to try to preach on here. However Ermz, my intention is to show that there is far more to be cultivated from the bible than only the universal morals that everyone is born with.

 

[zakky]

i think extraterrestrials developed our humankinds biological and cultural evolution they were responsible for cloning us, it sounds a little far fetched... and maybe the gods that the ancient greeks talked about were extraterrestrials i guess religion just translates all this in a different way just my thoughts........

 

[Ermz]

I don't think any Christian would claim that without the bible they would instead be unkind and immoral; no one claims that a person is doomed to a life of immorality and wretchedness if they don't obey the bible.

I've known a fair few purveyors of Christianity who might take issue with that! Certainly if we're both talking about the same bible - the one that would condemn a man to hell simply for not believing.

Jesus tells us not to store up treasures on earth, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also". This is completely against our own natural inclinations to seek material wealth.

The Vatican certainly has a lot to answer for then!

I could continue on with "bible hour" , but I'm sure you all would rather that I didn't, and I won't because it's not my intention to try to preach on here. However Ermz, my intention is to show that there is far more to be cultivated from the bible than only the universal morals that everyone is born with.

The only thing I can perceptibly gain from the bible, beyond being a life motivational/instructional, is a collection of not very well constructed fables, and many directly contradicting ideas. You can even see by the quotes I've responded to above we're already getting into contradiction country, and that's not even looking deeply into things.

What gets me is that even devout Christians seem to live a life of contradiction. When was the last time you put someone to death for the following?

Exo 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Lev 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

You can't pick and choose which aspects of your bible you want to abide by. Selective reasoning like that shows how truly disorganized and thrown together the entire idea and conviction behind this religion is. People seem to use it as a veil so often to justify the most repugnant of actions and motivations. You just pick and choose which part of it you want to hide behind at whichever point it suits the situation at hand. Those are not the marks of intelligent people - yet so many intelligent people are indoctrinated so early on that they never stand a chance.

When I get asked to take lessons from the bible to heart, I get deeply offended, as a free, reasoning person. I cannot on any level fathom at what point someone could wholeheartedly accept the hate-speech in that vile book, especially in light of it lying in direct contradiction with the moral traits it attempts to fear-monger into its readers.

 

[SocialNumb]

Thanks Ermz. Agree 100% Hypocrites.

I was about to do my own brand of cheery picking the Bible. It would have been massive. I rather use the time for something else tho.

Maybe later. If I feel like reading a good story on rape.

And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?"

Yep, all knowing . . .