The great and all powerful religion thread!

[Thoth-Amon]

Well, yeah, things go wrong. But look how much crap we have introduced to ourselves. And regardless of imperfections, it still does seem planned. It is a delicate balance, regardless of your denial of that. It is amazingly complex. And evolution has no more proof than creationism. We have proof that we exist, and have for a while. We have no more than that on either side.

Well we actually have quite a bit of proof that evolution has occured.
But to support what you said one could theorize that an intelligent designer designed many of the aspects of life and many of the 'errors' or 'badly designed' things could be the result of natural mutations and evolutionary forces.
Then again this would be purely speculative.
In any case whatever one's view it must incorporate the evidence for evolution as it is very strong.

 

[Ender Rises]

I actually have good, non-nihilistic answers for these questions:

1. Why won't God heal amputees?
A. Because God gave us scientific thought to deal with healing the sick, and we have not yet figured out how to completely regenerate a limb (other than reattaching it or getting implants)

2.Why are there so many starving people in our world?
A. Because the world's food supply is unbalanced and those particular countries do not have a lot of access to trade with countries with abundant resources.

3. Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?
A. Because the Bible is a written history of the Jewish people and the Jews believed submissively in the will of God, thus being reflected in their writings.

4. Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?
A. Such as? If you're referring to Creation, all oral traditions have the world created by fantastic means, not by science, because science was a foreign concept to people in those days.

5. Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?
A. Like I said, the Bible is a book of Jewish history, and they happened to fall into slavery several times because they were easily conquered.

6. Why do bad things happen to good people?
A. Our actions are not inherently good or bad in themselves, and thus "bad" things (also a subjective concept) don't really have any bias.

7. Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles leave behind any evidence in the Bible?
A. What, like the wine or something? What sort of evidence was there to be left behind?

8. How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?
A. Because Jesus died over 2000 years ago and cannot physically appear to anyone.

9. Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?
A. It's symbolic, dumbass. Jews were thinkers in concrete imagery, so Jesus was appealing to this side by saying such things.

10. Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?
A. Because humans are human no matter what damn cult they belong to.

I say all this being a strong believer in God (not in a traditional sense, though). I think the only thing more ridiculous than Christians rationalizing their beliefs are people who criticize it seriously with sarcastic remarks. They're no better, really.

There is a difference, obviously, in what you believe and what most Christians believe. Most Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God, that it is divine and perfect. Confronted with the questions raised in this video their faith is seriously put to the test. You obviously believe that the Bible was written by man and has mistakes and such, like your belief that the Old Testament is mostly Jewish history, not beliefs that we should practice. You deviate from most Christians in this belief. If you don;t understand what I'm saying, argue with me when I'm sober.

 

[Hatebreeder]

There is a difference, obviously, in what you believe and what most Christians believe. Most Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God, that it is divine and perfect. Confronted with the questions raised in this video their faith is seriously put to the test. You obviously believe that the Bible was written by man and has mistakes and such, like your belief that the Old Testament is mostly Jewish history, not beliefs that we should practice. You deviate from most Christians in this belief. If you don;t understand what I'm saying, argue with me when I'm sober.

You have a point, but a lot of these questions are silly and really provide no challenge to a person's faith in the Bible. So Jesus didn't leave behind evidence of his miracles? What evidence is there to have? And a lot of Christians believe in the transcendent will of God, which leaves many things unexplained.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Most of the above questions are indeed pretty trifling. The only one I'd say couldn't just be brushed off by a fundie Christian is, "Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?"

#7 can be generalised into a much more challenging form, i.e. "If God exists, then why is there no scientific way of verifying his existence?"

Another good question is, "How do you know that Christianity is the 'correct' faith when there are many other faiths out there which not only contradict Christianity but, like Christianity, cannot be falsified either?"

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

Another good question is, "How do you know that Christianity is the 'correct' faith when there are many other faiths out there which not only contradict Christianity but, like Christianity, cannot be falsified either?"

Because it gets shouted at you by some fucker at the bus stop. (True story)

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I've been wanting to pick on a curbside evangelist for a while now. The last one I saw, though, had already drawn a giant crowd around him, plus his own heckling crew. He was standing on a crate so he could be seen by everyone, and he was basically ignoring the hecklers, who were cussing him out and telling him to 'come down to their level' and answer their questions. It looked like it had the potential to get violent, and there was only this one rent-a-cop standing around, so I didn't really feel like getting involved...

 

[cookiecutter]

Can you point me in the direction of this experimental proof?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

And the whole discussion of presenting intelligent design in the school systems as a theory, along side of evolution, really makes sense if you do not have an anti-creator agenda. It's just a theory that, based on the amazing complexity and balance we see in nature, it looks like someone planned it. The thing is, it really does look like it was planned. It really does work together like a system that was carefully planned and thought out. No, you can't prove it, but neither is evolution proved (on a level from non-life to humans). But evolutionists are unwilling to even consider the possibility, which in and of itself is unscientific.

You are not listening. Intelligent design is not a theory. It has NO evidence to support it. Just claiming "it seems designed" is not evidence. Intelligent Design is not kept out of science class because of an anti-creator agenda, it is kept out because it is not science and it is wrong. If you won't accept this then you are ignorant. I am sorry, but the evidence for evolution is so massive that not accepting it is ignorant.

I actually have good, non-nihilistic answers for these questions ... I say all this being a strong believer in God (not in a traditional sense, though). I think the only thing more ridiculous than Christians rationalizing their beliefs are people who criticize it seriously with sarcastic remarks. They're no better, really.

That video was not meant for you since you are not a bible believing Christian. It seems you accept that God does not have a hand in daily affairs. What do you think God is and why do you believe in him?

 

[AchrisK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

You are not listening. Intelligent design is not a theory. It has NO evidence to support it. Just claiming "it seems designed" is not evidence. Intelligent Design is not kept out of science class because of an anti-creator agenda, it is kept out because it is not science and it is wrong. If you won't accept this then you are ignorant. I am sorry, but the evidence for evolution is so massive that not accepting it is ignorant.

Thanks for the link. As I continued reading through the thread I saw that someone else asked and you already posted it, but thanks for posting it for me.

Ok, I can see what you're saying here, but it is more scientific than you make it out to be. It can be presented as, "look at how this design works and the incredible balance and complexity which rivals anything man has designed". From there you can go into some of the facts about these things and come away with the possibility that it was designed. Yes, it is science coupled with faith. Faith that there is something at work that we do not understand. And I can see how that, in comparison with how evolution is taught as scientific fact seems inappropriate. But I think that argument would be more valid if evolution had things more completely explained. Yes we see evolution all around us, but science has not demonstrated real proof for "non-life to human" evolution. The truth is I need to do more research into evolution to see what the claims are and what proof there is, but I know there is a lack of a complete and coherent theory and especially repeatable proof.

Maybe let's change the argument. Instead of intelligent design, why not teach what the theory of evolution claims, and along with that, present where it has problems, gaps, holes and inconsistencies? There is no arguing that this would be more scientific than just teaching it as accepted truth. In essence, by teaching evolution as accepted truth, you are teaching a faith based science. Faith that we are on the right track and as we learn more it will be shown to be true. Hmmm…this kinda brings us back to intelligent design. How is it all that different from the way evolution is taught in public schools?

 

[skeptik]

It depends entirely on the school. I know that my professor addressed the grey areas of evolution and where its faults were, though I'm not actually sure if that was part of the curriculum or he just did that on his own. State and local legislatures have a lot more to do with what students learn than school boards, parents, etc., because they're the ones that pay the textbook companies, and they tend to pay the one most willing to publish the information that they want.

 

[genocide roach]

Maybe let's change the argument. Instead of intelligent design, why not teach what the theory of evolution claims, and along with that, present where it has problems, gaps, holes and inconsistencies? There is no arguing that this would be more scientific than just teaching it as accepted truth. In essence, by teaching evolution as accepted truth, you are teaching a faith based science. Faith that we are on the right track and as we learn more it will be shown to be true. Hmmm…this kinda brings us back to intelligent design. How is it all that different from the way evolution is taught in public schools?

kindly leave religion out of schools. thanks

we dont need to teach religion in schools, thats what church/sunday school is for. the only reason we teach evolution is because the average kid wont get that info any other way, but you cant say that about religion, since most kids are raised religious. until museums are treated like churches, and visited every week, we must teach evolution in schools
~gR~

 

[genocide roach]

oh, and the idea of scientist's saying "well, we cant explain this, maybe its the work of god" really concerns me. throwing your hands up and saying i dont know is counter productive to science.

so, coupling science and faith seems like a really stupid idea
~gR~

 

[skeptik]

Science is the means by which we escape mere faith. Science is exploring the issues, events, circumstances, and happenings that we don't understand rather than accepting some arbitrary belief about it. Even if we use your "look at how this design works and the incredible balance and complexity which rivals anything man has designed" premise, there is no way to scientifically conclude the creator hypothesis because the whole thing has nothing to do with science.

 

[AchrisK]

kindly leave religion out of schools. thanks

we dont need to teach religion in schools, thats what church/sunday school is for. the only reason we teach evolution is because the average kid wont get that info any other way, but you cant say that about religion, since most kids are raised religious. until museums are treated like churches, and visited every week, we must teach evolution in schools

oh, and the idea of scientist's saying "well, we cant explain this, maybe its the work of god" really concerns me. throwing your hands up and saying i dont know is counter productive to science.

so, coupling science and faith seems like a really stupid idea
~gR~

I am not talking about religion. I am talking about if we are teaching about the origins of life as we know it, lets present the major ideas available, including their flaws or what they haven't figured out yet. Presenting evolution without presenting where it is incomplete is presenting something that requires faith. Actually it smells of deception and mind control.

And "saying i dont know" is part of science. It's what science is all about. Nobody said we have to "throw our hands up". Obviously science is going to keep moving and discovering. Attributing unknowns to the possibility of a creator, or a future discovery of science is not "throwing your hands up".

Plus, try reading all of what I said.

 

[skeptik]

Saying "look at all of this stuff, it's so intricate and complex that I can't fathom how it could have been a natural occurrence, so it must have been intelligently designed" is throwing your hands up. Proposing the conclusion that the world must have been intelligently designed without a single piece of evidence that could feasibly used as proof of this is throwing your hands up. Intelligent design is completely and utterly unscientific and unfounded and doesn't belong in schools because it is not even knowledge.

 

[AchrisK]

Saying "look at all of this stuff, it's so intricate and complex that I can't fathom how it could have been a natural occurrence, so it must have been intelligently designed" is throwing your hands up. Proposing the conclusion that the world must have been intelligently designed without a single piece of evidence that could feasibly used as proof of this is throwing your hands up. Intelligent design is completely and utterly unscientific and unfounded and doesn't belong in schools because it is not even knowledge.

So what about presenting the shortcomings of evolution then? Do you not see the problem with presenting it as truth when it is incomplete and is not been scientifically proven? Do you not see the faith it takes? Do you not see the deception of presenting it as if it is just plain old truth?

 

[skeptik]

Did you not see my last post?

http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/6400184-post309.html

And unlike religion, science is not force-fed and preached as ALMIGHTY AND INFALLIBLE. Science is always subject to change with the discovery of new information. For example, a recent study has shown that dental records of thousands of skulls from various millions of years ago show that there are more similarities between Europeans and Asians than with Africans, which takes into question the "Out Of Africa" hypothesis. Just like with this case, evolution is approached as "this is the most likely occurrence based on what we now know and can reasonably hypothesize.

 

[genocide roach]

I am not talking about religion. I am talking about if we are teaching about the origins of life as we know it, lets present the major ideas available, including their flaws or what they haven't figured out yet. Presenting evolution without presenting where it is incomplete is presenting something that requires faith. Actually it smells of deception and mind control.

yeah, i wasnt really attacking your position, but rather what you said prompted me to make my own point. but if we are to show flaws (which is fine to me) most people are going to ask what is another solution to that problem. and thats where religion can sometimes come in, and it cant.

faith= deception and mind control. THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS! he said religion is a form of mind control. we can all go home now
~gR~

 

[Unfaithfully Metalhead]

It depends entirely on the school. I know that my professor addressed the grey areas of evolution and where its faults were, though I'm not actually sure if that was part of the curriculum or he just did that on his own. State and local legislatures have a lot more to do with what students learn than school boards, parents, etc., because they're the ones that pay the textbook companies, and they tend to pay the one most willing to publish the information that they want.

I would rethink that post Doden... apparently this one woman from Texas who was a christian conservative (she passed away recently hence "was") had more power (since the 60's or 70's apparently) then state and local legislature in what should be included in a textbook or what is correct or incorrect based on her christian views on some of the topics though not all:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/e...6e83b4ebcd140e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[AchrisK]

yeah, i wasnt really attacking your position, but rather what you said prompted me to make my own point. but if we are to show flaws (which is fine to me) most people are going to ask what is another solution to that problem. and thats where religion can sometimes come in, and it cant.

Are you saying you oppose the discussion of the shortcomings or "yet-to-comings" because they may create questions which some people would answer with "religion"? Or simply that the schools should not present the religion?

faith= deception and mind control. THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS! he said religion is a form of mind control. we can all go home now
~gR~

ENT! No prize!

I am saying that it takes some faith to believe that evolution describes everything we see in front of us. The mind control comes in where you KNOW something is incomplete or inadequate to fully explain something, but you hide that fact and present it as if it is just fact.

I do agree that religion can, has and will be used by man to attempt to control others, though.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/e...6e83b4ebcd140e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

^ That story was pretty interesting.