Disbelief of evolution on the rise...but not in the US

[jabarto]

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/10/25/in_the_muslim_world_creationism_is_on_the_rise/?page=full



But there is another creationist movement whose influence is growing, and which is fueling challenges to science in countries where Christianity has little sway: Islamic creationism. Campaigners in countries like Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, and Indonesia have fought the teaching of evolution in schools there, sometimes with great success. Creationist conferences have been held in Pakistan, and moderate Islamic clerics are on record publicly condemning Darwin’s ideas. A recent study of Muslim university students in the Netherlands showed that most rejected evolution. And driven in part by a mysterious Turkish publishing organization, Islamic creationism books are hot sellers at bookstores throughout the Muslim world.



It’s hard to say exactly how much support the theory of evolution enjoys in the world’s Muslim countries, but it’s definitely not very much. In one 2006 study by American political scientists, people in 34 industrial nations were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the idea that human beings evolved from earlier life forms. Turkey, the only Muslim country in the survey, showed the lowest levels of support - barely a quarter of Turks said they agreed. By comparison, at least 80 percent of those surveyed in Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, and France agreed. (The United States ranked second lowest, after Turkey, at 40 percent.) Turkey is widely seen as the most culturally liberal Muslim nation, and on attitudes about evolution, other polling has borne this out: A recent study of religious attitudes found that only 16 percent of Indonesians, 14 percent of Pakistanis, and 8 percent of Egyptians believed in evolution.

At first I thought that the only people who didn't believe in evolution were a very small handful of Protestants in the southern USA. I thought that this was just another one of those issues for which people in Europe laugh at us. I was a fool; idiocy respects no borders. :wall:

I was going to post a lot more here, but it essentially came down to a rant; I'll post it if you want to hear it but it's really not that interesting. :sweatdrop:

[Devastatin Dave]

Evolve some balls and post it.

[jabarto]

Evolve some balls and post it.

:huh:

Where the hell did that come from?

SO ANYWAY this issue is rather near and dear to my heart because it exemplifies human arrogance and narrowmindedness in a way that few other things do. Evolution is a fact; the evidence in its favor is overwhelming. There is more support for evolution than any other theory in existence. So it strikes me as hubris in the utmost when people claim that evolution wrong, as if they and they alone have found some oh so obvious fault with it. I've actually known people who don't believe in evolution - of course, one of them believed she was destined to give birth to the savior of the planet in 2012, but that's not really important - and their arguments can typically be distilled to "I didn't come from a fish/space dust/monkeys." So it really is a matter of pride more than anything. And it stands in the way of all honest scientific progress.

Of course, you can't blame this entirely on the fundies. Public education in this country is terrible when it comes to science, and most people who are knowledgeable in these matters don't have the time to give a Bio 101 lesson to everyone who asks, so it's understandable that some vainglorious fools would be ignorant of science. That doesn't make it right, though.

Also, I'm sure most people here know about it, but if you ever find yourself debating with a fundie, there's a great site called talkorigins.org that has a lot of info on evolution. Even if not, it's still good to check out once in a while to keep the mind sharp.

[Sarmatian]

I find it hard to believe that people actually argue with someone supporting creationism. It's totally and utterly pointless. They may believe gravity doesn't exist but it would still hurt if they fall from a 10th story.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

:huh:

Where the hell did that come from?

SO ANYWAY this issue is rather near and dear to my heart because it exemplifies human arrogance and narrowmindedness in a way that few other things do. Evolution is a fact; the evidence in its favor is overwhelming. There is more support for evolution than any other theory in existence. So it strikes me as hubris in the utmost when people claim that evolution wrong, as if they and they alone have found some oh so obvious fault with it. I've actually known people who don't believe in evolution - of course, one of them believed she was destined to give birth to the savior of the planet in 2012, but that's not really important - and their arguments can typically be distilled to "I didn't come from a fish/space dust/monkeys." So it really is a matter of pride more than anything. And it stands in the way of all honest scientific progress.

Of course, you can't blame this entirely on the fundies. Public education in this country is terrible when it comes to science, and most people who are knowledgeable in these matters don't have the time to give a Bio 101 lesson to everyone who asks, so it's understandable that some vainglorious fools would be ignorant of science. That doesn't make it right, though.

Also, I'm sure most people here know about it, but if you ever find yourself debating with a fundie, there's a great site called talkorigins.org that has a lot of info on evolution. Even if not, it's still good to check out once in a while to keep the mind sharp.

The problem is that the evidence is all scientific, not concrete, and it isn't conclusive. Also, evolution is of no apparent use to most people, so they do not feel compelled to believe it.

Add to that the antagonism many popular Scientists have towards religion currently, making it an either or, and it's not surprising the theory has become increasingly unpopular.

[Fragony]

If they want to believe that fine with me, doesn't affect me in any way. I think people who believe in the Darwin theory are usually much more intrusive and intolerant towards creationists then visa versa. Why they believe it is beyond me but why should I care. But some do, why.

[Cute Wolf]

Yeah... I once get into debate with them when they held some kind of "there is no evolution seminar"... and what can I say, they are stubborn beyond belief, as they start saying that those Homo-Blah-Blah-Blah are not humans, but deformed monkeys or they are humans that their god has cursed into monkeys.

[Louis VI the Fat]

one of them believed she was destined to give birth to the savior of the planet in 2012Haha! Stupid fundies. :laugh4:

It is I who'll save the planet in 2012, not some baby. :no:


---------

Hmmm...on second thought, it does improve your chances of getting some in 2011. I must keep an eye out. Maybe hang out more in New Age clubs by then.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Evolve some balls and post it.


:huh:

Where the hell did that come from?

Don't worry, that's just Dave being charming. No offense intended, I'm sure. I think he likes you. :beam:

[Viking]

Haha! Stupid fundies. :laugh4:

It is I who'll save the planet in 2012, not some baby. :no:


---------

Hmmm...on second thought, it does improve your chances of getting some in 2011. I must keep an eye out. Maybe hang out more in New Age clubs by then.

No need to wait until 2011, start faking you spirituality today (http://www.livescience.com/health/090930-spirituality.html).

[Rhyfelwyr]

Don't be stupid, nobody can save us from 2012. :no:

Anyway, I'm not surprised at the findings of the OP. I remember a BBC article that said something like 1/3 of people in the UK do not believe in evolution, and obviously the number of fundamentalists here is nowhere near as high as 1/3 of the population.

I know a few non-religious people that don't believe in evolution, the idea we evolved from monkeys just seems stupid to them.


Also, I'm sure most people here know about it, but if you ever find yourself debating with a fundie, there's a great site called talkorigins.org that has a lot of info on evolution. Even if not, it's still good to check out once in a while to keep the mind sharp.

Bah! That's not real debating. I could just as easily go to a fundamentalist site and get a few facts and quasi-theories and through them around with some Dawkinesque guy doing the same. How many people having these atheist v fundamentalist (which is what they are usually about) flame wars on the magical world of the internet actually have a solid, well-rounded understanding of the theory of evolution, as opposed to just shouting some facts that prove how right they are?

[Devastatin Dave]

Don't worry, that's just Dave being charming. No offense intended, I'm sure. I think he likes you. :beam:

If someone comes in here and says a large segment of the world's population is suffering from "idiocy" but doesn't fully explain thier position, regardless of they say its a "rant" they need to have their habitat adjust in a way for their scrotum to turn into a testical holding organ. I don't believe in evolution, not because I'm a creationist, but because their are as many holes in the theory as a brothel in Amstradam. If someone wants to show off to an international forum about how "enlightened" he is compared to us knuckle dragging neanderthals that want bend to his beliefs, bring forth thy nutz and speaketh upon thine flock.

and yes, I like the new guy.

[Fisherking]

To a cretin extent Dave is right...

There are examples of micro evolution but we have no firm evidence of macro evolution.

Believing either in evolution or what ever is an act of faith.

:laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Catholics almost universally agree that evolution sounds like a solid micro-explanation of God's creation in relation to the spiritual macro-explanation contained in the Bible. I truly don't see what the hold up is here with our proddie neighbors.

[Beskar]

Creationism is pretty dumb, unless you are going to argue like the Sumerians did, that aliens came down and had sex with female apes, and the hybrid resulted in Homospiens.

[Lemur]

Also, evolution is of no apparent use to most people, so they do not feel compelled to believe it.
Hmmm. It's the foundation of all modern biology. Do you like going to the doctor and not getting a mercury poultice or a leeching? Thank evolution. Do you like your ibuprofen or acetaminophen? Thank evolution. Sheesh, do you like having selective breeding with horses, dogs, and every grain we eat? Thank evolution.

People just get their scrotums in a twist over the idea that evoution might apply to humans. That's what gets them all worked up. Fine then. Evolution applies to bacteria, insects, fungi, plants and animals, but we are special and different.

There. Does that make you happy?

[gaelic cowboy]

Creationism is pretty dumb, unless you are going to argue like the Sumerians did, that aliens came down and had sex with female apes, and the hybrid resulted in Homospiens.

Cool that probaly means that the phrase get your hands off me you dam dirty ape (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-6L_hT3QtQ) was uttered in ancient sumer

[Beskar]

Cool that probaly means that the phrase get your hands off me you dam dirty ape (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-6L_hT3QtQ) was uttered in ancient sumer

Sort of the otherway round. Even though they were vastly old, they believed that gods came from another world and had sex with female of the species for whatever reason, thus giving birth to Homosapiens. Because of this mingling, it is argued this caused the big evolutionary jumps which biologists find hard to explain, because of receiving certain genetic information.

If this sounds too confusing, I will put it this way. Do you remember the final of Battlestar Galatica? Think of it like that. (this will get Lemur at least. knowing what I am on about)

Pretty impressive from a religion from 4000 odd BC.

[gaelic cowboy]

Yeah I have a book on eye witness accounts from history the fist one is a tablet from ancient sumer supposedly that details a young boys day at school and later doing his homework. If you ignore the date at the top of the page it just reads like a kid of today amazing stuff.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Hmmm. It's the foundation of all modern biology. Do you like going to the doctor and not getting a mercury poultice or a leeching? Thank evolution. Do you like your ibuprofen or acetaminophen? Thank evolution. Sheesh, do you like having selective breeding with horses, dogs, and every grain we eat? Thank evolution.

People just get their scrotums in a twist over the idea that evoution might apply to humans. That's what gets them all worked up. Fine then. Evolution applies to bacteria, insects, fungi, plants and animals, but we are special and different.

There. Does that make you happy?

Philip is right, taking ibuprofen doesn't require a belief in evolution. Believing in evolution doesn't make you special.

I would compare evolution denial to football fans claiming their team got robbed by the refs when they didn't. Yes, it's often obviously incorrect, but they believe it because they want to and there isn't much harm in it. Everyone holds some beliefs like that, it's human nature. Not to be applauded, but it is silly to accuse them all of idiocy.

[Lemur]

Philip is right, taking ibuprofen doesn't require a belief in evolution.
In much the same sense that eating a hamburger does not require a belief in ranching.


Believing in evolution doesn't make you special.
Of course it doesn't. Denying the evolutionary process, however, when you ought to know better, does make you special.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmmm. It's the foundation of all modern biology. Do you like going to the doctor and not getting a mercury poultice or a leeching? Thank evolution. Do you like your ibuprofen or acetaminophen? Thank evolution. Sheesh, do you like having selective breeding with horses, dogs, and every grain we eat? Thank evolution.

People just get their scrotums in a twist over the idea that evoution might apply to humans. That's what gets them all worked up. Fine then. Evolution applies to bacteria, insects, fungi, plants and animals, but we are special and different.

There. Does that make you happy?


:inquisitive:

Please less invective, I had an argument with a Norwegian friend about "Objective truth" yesterday which resulted in him telling me to do something untoward with my "Christian worldview."

People get upset when I tell them I can slaughter a sheep, and can describe the process in detail, but they still eat chops. You don't need to believe in evolution unless you are a biologist, just like you don't need to believe in the Big Bang or Quantom Theory unless you are a physicist.

[Beskar]

There are important facts that everyone keeps forgetting in this debate.

While evolution seems to explain most things most accurately, and there is evidence all around us of this occuring. End of the day, it is a theory based on availible information and what are deemed facts/evidence to support this claim. End of the day, this theory is not absolute, and would get replaced when sufficient understand causes it too.


Creationism on the otherhand, is an absolute belief which is not wrong or cannot be wrong, that invisible being or beings created everything from nothingness simply into existence at the mere existence of their thought. It is not based on evidence, facts or a colloboration of various things. It is infact, believed solely on a text which originated from a text where there were 7 different versions of creation, with this one being taken as the 'right and absolute one', because they believe everything written by man about this said invisible being.


Now, look at this carefully. Evolution might not be the end answer, but it doesn't claim to be, though it is one of the best we came up so far to explain everything. Creationism is an absolute answer based solely on the word of some one who just wrote down on a piece of papyrus or lamb skin from a time long forgotten.


The reason Creationism is foolish, is because regardless of facts, evidence, or understanding, they just ignore it. They don't attempt to be understanding or even try to, they see it as a threat to their ingrained religious dogma. The issue is not whether or not evolution is the answer, arguably, it is not even whether or not creationism is either. It is the argument of understanding and attempting to understand the world around us.

[Strike For The South]

At first I thought that the only people who didn't believe in evolution were a very small handful of Protestants in the southern USA. I thought that this was just another one of those issues for which people in Europe laugh at us. I was a fool; idiocy respects no borders. :wall:


Ah yes because Europeans can do no wrong and southeners are holding the country back.

Stereotyping isn't very fun when simply take what you see from hollywood and put write it down.

[Lemur]

You don't need to believe in evolution unless you are a biologist, just like you don't need to believe in the Big Bang or Quantom Theory unless you are a physicist.
Hmm, well, nobody needs to believe anything in particular. It's just a question of being functional, and dealing with the real world as effectively as possible. You can certainly live a long, healthy and productive life while believing in Young Earth creationism, but you're right, best not to get involved in medicine, bacteriology, pharmacology, nursing or any field that derives from modern biology.

However, you'd have to admit that there's a certain cognitive dissonance in accepting the fruits of modern biology while denying its foundation. That antibiotic that you gave your kid to help with his ear infection? It wouldn't exist without the theory of evolution. Greg Mendel and Chuck Darwin say, "You're welcome!"

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In much the same sense that eating a hamburger does not require a belief in ranching.

Yes...?



Of course it doesn't. Denying the evolutionary process, however, when you ought to know better, does make you special.

Not if 1/3 of the US agrees with you ;)

I see an immature intellectual snobbery streak in liberalism, in america at least. Or maybe I just read too many digg comments even though I know what I'm going to get.

"I'm an atheist, religion is the opiate of the masses"
"You might be a redneck if...you watch nascar and drink domestic pisswater instead of heineken"
"Evolution is fact, idiots deny it"

:rolleyes:

It's the parallel of the holier than thou moral high ground the conservatives pull (although the liberal pull that on many issues as well).

As someone said earlier in the thread, many people are pleased with themselves for their superiority while actually not knowing much about the subjects.

So what if someone is a creationist. If they are arrogant and self righteous enough to demand that it's taught in science class, then the problem is that they are arrogant and self righteous.

Well, that was mostly on topic anyway :sweatdrop:




However, you'd have to admit that there's a certain cognitive dissonance in accepting the fruits of modern biology while denying its foundation. That antibiotic that you gave your kid to help with his ear infection? It wouldn't exist without the theory of evolution. Greg Mendel and Chuck Darwin say, "You're welcome!"

How about the cognitive dissonance involved in accepting the foundation and being upset about the fruits?

"Oh no, my apple tree grew apples!"

[Lemur]

Not if 1/3 of the US agrees with you ;)
If that's the polling, I'd be interested to see how the question was phrased. A lot of people accept the role of a Creator without denying the evolutionary process. The two are not mutually exclusive, but a poorly phrased poll might make them seem so.


I see an immature intellectual snobbery streak in liberalism, in america at least.
When regurgitating political clichés, you should heave them up them accurately. Your omitted "ivory tower," "un-American," "liberal elite" and "ivy league." Other than that, well done!


How about the cognitive dissonance involved in accepting the foundation and being upset about the fruits?

"Oh no, my apple tree grew apples!"
Could your example be a little more vague and unclear? Are you referencing something specific, of have you just gone all postmodern on us again?

[Beskar]

Times like this, I wonder why I actually do serious posts and why don't I just post "bollox" in reply to every post to anyone I disagree with.

[Centurion1]

^ bollox

nah you can believe in evolution and god. Most catholics as someone said above do, i am one of them. I dont understand when people cannot allow god to do things in a time that may not be literal to scripture.

[A Very Super Market]

Times like this, I wonder why I actually do serious posts and why don't I just post "bollox" in reply to every post to anyone I disagree with.

bollox, Centurion stole my post.

Edit: Isn't this thread a criticism of creationism?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If that's the polling, I'd be interested to see how the question was phrased. A lot of people accept the role of a Creator without denying the evolutionary process. The two are not mutually exclusive, but a poorly phrased poll might make them seem so.

Someone said that was the result for britain earlier, I don't know what the real number is.



When regurgitating political clichés, you should heave them up them accurately. Your omitted "ivory tower," "un-American," "liberal elite" and "ivy league." Other than that, well done!

"At first I thought that the only people who didn't believe in evolution were a very small handful of Protestants in the southern USA. I thought that this was just another one of those issues for which people in Europe laugh at us. I was a fool; idiocy respects no borders.

...

it's understandable that some vainglorious fools would be ignorant of science."


Could your example be a little more vague and unclear? Are you referencing something specific, of have you just gone all postmodern on us again?

If you believe in evolution, you should not be surprised at the resulting human psyche. An aptitude for religious and irrational beliefs evolved in us.

Don't you think it's odd that the people who make the biggest fuss about evolution seem ignorant of the fact that our minds evolved?

I think the "Oh no, my apple tree grew apples" comment conveyed that quite clearly :whip:


Times like this, I wonder why I actually do serious posts and why don't I just post "bollox" in reply to every post to anyone I disagree with.

Quote someone and add "You're wrong because:" to the beginning of your post.

[Louis VI the Fat]

People just get their scrotums in a twist over the idea that evoution might apply to humans. That's what gets them all worked up. Fine then. Evolution applies to bacteria, insects, fungi, plants and animals, but we are special and different. Ah, and therein lies the rub.

Rather than fruitless attempts to undermine evolution with pseudo-science, the creationists have a better answer to allegations of 'idiocy'. Namely, that evolution has still not been fully adopted into the thought of evolutionists either. Not in philosophy, in humanities, in science, in how we conceive of ourselves.
The 'created man, 'man is special' line of thought still prevails. As does the notion that life, nature, physics, existence has a goal.


When I 'fall in love', I realise and accept what modern science teaches: it is just a chemical in my brain, stimulated by scents, sights etc.
But..it is also more than just a chemical to me. Being in love means a whole thought world of literature, poetry, romantic. I willfully see the world, experience my love, from this literary perspective.

The same holds true for religion and science. One can believe man descended from apes, was not created. Yet still see man as something else too, as more than an ape. To see man, to conceive of oneself, within a framework of other, older, narratives, in the perspective of the heritage of the exploration of man in religion, literature, myth and philosophy.

Both creationists and evolutionists see man in pretty much the same manner. From the perspective of the same literary narratives. The difference isn't all that great. This shows that creationists are not necessarily idiots, no more so than evolutionists.


To be vague, for I am distinctly lacking in philosophical jargon, English vocabulary, or clarity of thought:
an apple is at once green, a fruit, food, property, sacred, delicious, a means of reproduction. All of that and much more. What matters it what it is in which perspective. Subjective an objective are not clearly separated. 'Delicious' could be taken to be subjective. Yet the biologist will say it objectively tastes good because that is a function of its reproductive means. 'Sacred' could be taken to be subjective too, or even wrong. Yet, the biologist might say that to those who depend on apples for food this strategy is objectively beneficial to ensure their survival.
Likewise, man can be described as a lump of cells, or as endowed with a soul, or sacred, an organising means for micro-organisms who are really in charge, noble, a compagnon, a bastard, a bastard again, that is, born out of wedlock or of disagreebale character, or an infinite other things. The one does not exclude the other. Man can have a soul and be descended from apes. Evolutionists are still rather more close the the former than to the latter in their thought.

The Bible should not be taken literally, but literary. In much the same fashion, much secular thought is literary, much closer to magical thinking than many expect. The true evolutionist will mate with a partner to ensure offspring. But most people will mate because they love the other, have romantic ideas, projections, passions that are not seen as a mere biological function, but as part of a literary 'magical world'. All of which is altogether much closer to assuming the loved one is a person endowed with a soul than people care to admit.

*grabs another pint and goes off to post other confusing pseudophilosophy elsewhere*

[Strike For The South]

Don't worry guys I'm a (new) biology major I'll have answers in a few years.

[Louis VI the Fat]

There are important facts that everyone keeps forgetting in this debate.

While evolution seems to explain most things most accurately, and there is evidence all around us of this occuring. End of the day, it is a theory based on availible information and what are deemed facts/evidence to support this claim. End of the day, this theory is not absolute, and would get replaced when sufficient understand causes it too.


Creationism on the otherhand, is an absolute belief which is not wrong or cannot be wrong, that invisible being or beings created everything from nothingness simply into existence at the mere existence of their thought. It is not based on evidence, facts or a colloboration of various things. It is infact, believed solely on a text which originated from a text where there were 7 different versions of creation, with this one being taken as the 'right and absolute one', because they believe everything written by man about this said invisible being.Creationism, I think, is the work of unimaginative religionists. It is dogmatic thinking, that does nothing to further either scienctific or theological debate alike.

For sheer annoying power, little beats the Sunday school trained pseudo-biologist with an internet site and exited presentations of how the eye couldn't have evolved, how the Flood explains geological events, and how Noah could've stored all those dinosaurs in his ark by not taking massive adults aboard but just the eggs.

Only to then insist this must be taught at schools. (Few ever want the 'controversy' over astrology to be taught in science class).



:balloon2: Now you've got a reply to your post! :balloon2:

[Samurai Waki]

^ I feel like I don't even need to contribute after Louis's Posts.

At the end of the day, it's essentially two separate entities intruding on one another's respective territory. If Creationists could keep their argument in the land of religion, and evolutionists keep their argument in the land of Science, I hardly see what difference it could make.

[Beskar]

At the end of the day, it's essentially two separate entities intruding on one another's respective territory. If Creationists could keep their argument in the land of religion, and evolutionists keep their argument in the land of Science, I hardly see what difference it could make.

It plays perfectly into this territory. The nations of Science and Religion are at war over the minds (+souls) of people, for their valuable resources and to institute control. :smash:

[Kadagar_AV]

Not if 1/3 of the US agrees with you ;)

Uh, 33% believes in creationism? That says a lot about the education, no?

Maybe time to declare a "war against bad education"... However, given the succes of the war on drugs and terrorism, maybe a war against good education would be better... :laugh4:



I see an immature intellectual snobbery streak in liberalism, in america at least. Or maybe I just read too many digg comments even though I know what I'm going to get.

"I'm an atheist, religion is the opiate of the masses"
"You might be a redneck if...you watch nascar and drink domestic pisswater instead of heineken"
"Evolution is fact, idiots deny it"

Ok, you seem to have got some very basics wrong. Evolution is not a fact, and no one with even a moderate education would claim so. It is a theory.

Sure, it is the best one we have at the moment, and the theory includes a lot of facts. But it is still a theory.


As someone said earlier in the thread, many people are pleased with themselves for their superiority while actually not knowing much about the subjects.

Agreed, many atheists just follow the general agenda without thinking. Much like people in the past followed the general christian agenda without thinking. However, as science gets more and more advanced, less and less people feel comfortable following the christian agenda as they get ridiculed. So the mainstream choose the safe haven of science, where if you get laughed at, at least you have the majority and scientists on your side, instead of priests in funny looking clothes and a very out dated collection of books.


So what if someone is a creationist. If they are arrogant and self righteous enough to demand that it's taught in science class, then the problem is that they are arrogant and self righteous.

I agree. Would be much better to have christian schools teaching creationism and stuff... Kind of a Darwinistic approach to education, to let them get taught that and then see how well they do in the modern society, getting a job and a partner.

Would probably be the best and fastest way to minimize religion, only, the victims would be children not knowing better, so isnt really cool :no:

[Ironside]

If you believe in evolution, you should not be surprised at the resulting human psyche. An aptitude for religious and irrational beliefs evolved in us.

Don't you think it's odd that the people who make the biggest fuss about evolution seem ignorant of the fact that our minds evolved?

I think the "Oh no, my apple tree grew apples" comment conveyed that quite clearly :whip:


Evolution is also infamous for its dead ends. And with changes in what's evolutionary benefical. :smug:


Personally I'm a bit towards the other direction and finds it very benefical to view all systems as evolutionary systems.

[CBR]

Ok, you seem to have got some very basics wrong. Evolution is not a fact, and no one with even a moderate education would claim so. It is a theory.

Sure, it is the best one we have at the moment, and the theory includes a lot of facts. But it is still a theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

[Mooks]

Bah! That's not real debating. I could just as easily go to a fundamentalist site and get a few facts and quasi-theories and through them around with some Dawkinesque guy doing the same. How many people having these atheist v fundamentalist (which is what they are usually about) flame wars on the magical world of the internet actually have a solid, well-rounded understanding of the theory of evolution, as opposed to just shouting some facts that prove how right they are?

Fun fact though, if you actually go to Richard Dawkins official website, your be corrected quick on any arguments you have against evolution. Theyre not kidding over there with science.

[Aemilius Paulus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
Ugh, thank you, it seems that every other day in the Backroom I have to explain to people that the scientific definition of a theory is nearly opposite of the popular definition...



In other news, addressing the original thread title, the disbelief of evolution is rising in the US, with only 39% stating directly "they believe in evolution" (this would answer your question, Lemur). Quite embarrassingly so, and ever more farcically, all the Christian/creationist sites are mentioning this with glee, while I guffaw, since all they succeed in doing is persuading me that Americans are stupider than I previously gave them credit for... (my apologies to all the Americans here - I am not big on stereotyping Americans in the popular manner, but c'mon, with such statistics, how is it possible to refrain from making such a statement?)

This is the official Gallup article. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx)Read it. It has a score of other polls on the topic of creationism vs. evolution. The big worry in the article is the fact that only 29% of the evolution non-believers can tie the name "Charles Darwin" to the concept "evolution". The other 71% have no idea what link the name "Charles Darwin" has to evolution. Basically, they have no idea who Charles Darwin was. Therefore, they do not even understand the basic concepts of the theory they (at times) so vehemently reject. That is the worst type of denial: ignorant denial. They are stupid and ignorant. It is one thing to reject a common scientific fact, and another thing to reject it, without actually understanding it.

And such ignorance is common. Jesus Christ, if I had as little as a the defunct half-pence for every time I heard "yeah, well, I do not believe we descended from monkeys" I would be richer than Warren Buffet+Bill Gates... It is literally the most common phrase an American utter upon hearing 'evolution'. :wall: Unless I am mistaken, even some of the Backroomers here said that. WRONG. Evolution does not say that, get it right!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ah, and therein lies the rub.

Rather than fruitless attempts to undermine evolution with pseudo-science, the creationists have a better answer to allegations of 'idiocy'. Namely, that evolution has still not been fully adopted into the thought of evolutionists either. Not in philosophy, in humanities, in science, in how we conceive of ourselves.
The 'created man, 'man is special' line of thought still prevails. As does the notion that life, nature, physics, existence has a goal.


When I 'fall in love', I realise and accept what modern science teaches: it is just a chemical in my brain, stimulated by scents, sights etc.
But..it is also more than just a chemical to me. Being in love means a whole thought world of literature, poetry, romantic. I willfully see the world, experience my love, from this literary perspective.

The same holds true for religion and science. One can believe man descended from apes, was not created. Yet still see man as something else too, as more than an ape. To see man, to conceive of oneself, within a framework of other, older, narratives, in the perspective of the heritage of the exploration of man in religion, literature, myth and philosophy.

Both creationists and evolutionists see man in pretty much the same manner. From the perspective of the same literary narratives. The difference isn't all that great. This shows that creationists are not necessarily idiots, no more so than evolutionists.


To be vague, for I am distinctly lacking in philosophical jargon, English vocabulary, or clarity of thought:
an apple is at once green, a fruit, food, property, sacred, delicious, a means of reproduction. All of that and much more. What matters it what it is in which perspective. Subjective an objective are not clearly separated. 'Delicious' could be taken to be subjective. Yet the biologist will say it objectively tastes good because that is a function of its reproductive means. 'Sacred' could be taken to be subjective too, or even wrong. Yet, the biologist might say that to those who depend on apples for food this strategy is objectively beneficial to ensure their survival.
Likewise, man can be described as a lump of cells, or as endowed with a soul, or sacred, an organising means for micro-organisms who are really in charge, noble, a compagnon, a bastard, a bastard again, that is, born out of wedlock or of disagreebale character, or an infinite other things. The one does not exclude the other. Man can have a soul and be descended from apes. Evolutionists are still rather more close the the former than to the latter in their thought.

The Bible should not be taken literally, but literary. In much the same fashion, much secular thought is literary, much closer to magical thinking than many expect. The true evolutionist will mate with a partner to ensure offspring. But most people will mate because they love the other, have romantic ideas, projections, passions that are not seen as a mere biological function, but as part of a literary 'magical world'. All of which is altogether much closer to assuming the loved one is a person endowed with a soul than people care to admit.

*grabs another pint and goes off to post other confusing pseudophilosophy elsewhere*


Merci, Louis. Le meilleur encore.


I wish half of my fellow English speakers could post at this quality level in their native language. That you do it in your second speaks well of you.

[drone]

I love how a thread about the rejection of the theory of evolution in Islamic countries turned very quickly into a Christian fundie laugh fest.

[Centurion1]

^ Yeah its going to happen whenever the word Evolution and well thats about all you need..........

[Devastatin Dave]

I love how a thread about the rejection of the theory of evolution in Islamic countries turned very quickly into a Christian fundie laugh fest.

Its OK to bash Christians and mock them. We all know what happens when you mock the religion of peace.

[drone]

Its OK to bash Christians and mock them. We all know what happens when you mock the religion of peace.

I'm beginning to think Fragony is right...

[Samurai Waki]

Its OK to bash Christians and mock them. We all know what happens when you mock the religion of peace.

they start a colony in guyana?

[Kadagar_AV]

I love how a thread about the rejection of the theory of evolution in Islamic countries turned very quickly into a Christian fundie laugh fest.

Well, religion as religion....

Does it matter if you throw logical thinking out the window because of God, Allah or The Pink Invisible Unicorn?

The exact name and characteristis of the superstition is not really the point.

The big question is how horrible it is that, at this modern day and age, we still have a large part of the worlds population who still have a medieval world view :no:

[Strike For The South]

Well, religion as religion....

Does it matter if you throw logical thinking out the window because of God, Allah or The Pink Invisible Unicorn?

The exact name and characteristis of the superstition is not really the point.

The big question is how horrible it is that, at this modern day and age, we still have a large part of the worlds population who still have amedieval world view :no:

My views certianly aren't medieval nor are my veiws any buisness of yours unless I make them so.

So NAH

[Kadagar_AV]

SFTS, I didnt know you were anto-evolution?

I believed you were one of the modern christians who somehow make god and evolution go hand in hand...

and as to:
my veiws any buisness of yours unless I make them so

Have I in any way said otherwise?

[Strike For The South]

SFTS, I didnt know you were anto-evolution?

I believed you were one of the modern christians who somehow make god and evolution go hand in hand...
?

Considering I'm a biology major, it would be diffucult to be anti--evo

And to answer your question I do not find Christianity and Evo to be mutually exclusive.

[Kadagar_AV]

Considering I'm a biology major, it would be diffucult to be anti--evo

And to answer your question I do not find Christianity and Evo to be mutually exclusive.

So... Uh... Remind me of what in my post you were arguing against?

[Strike For The South]

So... Uh... Remind me of what in my post you were arguing against?

I just like making your e-life difficult. :yes:

[Kadagar_AV]

I just like making your e-life difficult. :yes:

Well, as long as you come out of it without looking silly...

[Viking]

I love how a thread about the rejection of the theory of evolution in Islamic countries turned very quickly into a Christian fundie laugh fest.

Islamic ID/disbelief in evolution has very little influence in the western world. As such, few here is going to know to much about it; and has thus naturally little to contribute with.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I love how a thread about the rejection of the theory of evolution in Islamic countries turned very quickly into a Christian fundie laugh fest.

There's no real disagreement about the islamic countries being fundamentalist, and the OP didn't exactly dwell on it.

Besides, saying bad things about islam sounds xenophobic even when it isn't, and that's one of the main "liberal sins".

[Ironside]

I love how a thread about the rejection of the theory of evolution in Islamic countries turned very quickly into a Christian fundie laugh fest.

Indeed, the thread was moving completely fine with a general religious fundie laugh fest, until some boring christians came with "I don't belive in evolution" followed up with "I'm christian and belive in evolution and there's no conflict between religion and evolution".

Short summary. The acceptance of evolution depends a lot on education and the acceptance of the idea of that humanity is not that special (something that Louis already decribed is hard to accept for anyone). Any religious belif humanity as Gods chosen will then have a tendency be used as an enforcer to maintain the idea of humanitys chosen uniqueness.

Now, this is fitting on both muslim and christian countries and since our resident muslims have been silent on the matter and our christians have already braught the subject up involving christianity, it's a natural development of this particular thread. Keeping focus purely on muslims would've killed the thread already due to lack of new input.

Now, I would like DD mention some of those holes in Amstradam's brothels and in particular how they disprove evolution.

[Kadagar_AV]

I find this a beautiful thought...

Somewhere in the world, at this very time, a scientist is working on his minds full capacity to further humanitys knowledge one more step.

At the same time, a priest (or imam, or whatever) is telling people about a very very old book.



We don't have enough fundamentalists on this board... We only have Zain, and he doesnt put up much of a fight.

The rest are just religious pickers, pick this, leave that... :dizzy2:

Can someone invite a true fundie? It would further the discussion...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I find this a beautiful thought...

Somewhere in the world, at this very time, a scientist is working on his minds full capacity to further humanitys knowledge one more step.

At the same time, a priest (or imam, or whatever) is telling people about a very very old book.



Knowledge vs Wisdom?

[Centurion1]

its is very logical to be able to accept evolution and Christianity.....

[Kadagar_AV]

Knowledge vs Wisdom?

Or knowledge vs ignorance?

Centurion1,
its is very logical to be able to accept evolution and Christianity.....

Just like it's logical to go out an slice people with a knife to check if it all isn't a two dimentional hallucination.

:juggle2:

[Centurion1]

Look i believe that we as humans are far too small minded to truly understand god and that he works in ways we cannot even comprehend. I also believe that God does not follow the same time as we do and it is vain and arrogant to think that godwould adhere to simple mortal timelines. then it is not so hard to believe that god took the time to go through the process of evolution.

Finally i do not believe that the bible is absolute. God INSPIRED these people, they did not witness the events.

And for you kadavgar, you are being a scientific fundamentalist, unable to accept other peoples views because your view of the world is small and narrow.

[Kadagar_AV]

Look i believe that we as humans are far too small minded

Speak for yourself.


to truly understand god and that he works in ways we cannot even comprehend.

Then, how do you know that the biblical god is the real god? I mean, if you can't understand it?

Your basic argument is - "I have NO idea what I am talking about, but this old book says it's right, so I might aswell go with it"?


I also believe that God does not follow the same time as we do and it is vain and arrogant to think that godwould adhere to simple mortal timelines.

The bible seems to be rather precise about certain timelines... so you argue that that part is wrong, but the rest is right?


then it is not so hard to believe that god took the time to go through the process of evolution.

Is it not hard to believe? Why doesn't the bible mention it then? or the Quran (SP?)?

I'm just saying, if it wasnt hard to imagine, then why did science have such a hard fight with christians about it?

heck, some christians and muslims still are fundamentalist. Am I wrong?




Finally i do not believe that the bible is absolute. God INSPIRED these people, they did not witness the events.

If it isn't absolute, how do you know what parts are false?

No really, what is it that make you decide what is right and wrong in the bible? Logical thinking? If so, why don't you just apply logical thinking to the world at large?


And for you kadavgar, you are being a scientific fundamentalist, unable to accept other peoples views because your view of the world is small and narrow.

I swear that next one to spell my name will get a balloon...

It can't be that hard to get it right, 3 A:s and 4 consonants. The A:s are always between the consonants. All of the letters can be found in the middle of your keyboard, except the last one where I made it tricky and went up a level.

*sigh*

AS TO WHAT YOU SAID - scientific fundamentalist?

Oh no, I believe in a LOT of things science does not. I however choose to think that science hasn't reached that level yet.

Is my world small and narrow.... Just because I don't believe in the christian god?

I believe in a higher being, or beings, or a higher intellect. I believe so because I have seen signs that points towards the universe having more to give than some thousand year old textbook can explain.

However, the christian or muslim "god" is far from what I believe in.

So, would it be rude to say that you are more narrow minded than me? You just follow some gospel, where I try to reach my own conclusions, based on the combined science we have as of today.

[Centurion1]

sorry, kadagar

no my world view is narrow too. It is foolish to assume you know everything about all people.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I find this a beautiful thought...

Somewhere in the world, at this very time, a scientist is working on his minds full capacity to further humanitys knowledge one more step.

At the same time, a priest (or imam, or whatever) is telling people about a very very old book.



We don't have enough fundamentalists on this board... We only have Zain, and he doesnt put up much of a fight.

The rest are just religious pickers, pick this, leave that... :dizzy2:

Can someone invite a true fundie? It would further the discussion...

:laugh4::laugh4:

You speak of ignorance? Here's one for you; who came up with the theory of the Big Bang?

CR

[Kadagar_AV]

sorry, kadagar




:balloon2:


CR, why does it matter?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

:laugh4::laugh4:

You speak of ignorance? Here's one for you; who came up with the theory of the Big Bang?

CR

I had to look that up...nice one :thumbsup:

[Wishazu]

Knowledge vs Wisdom?

Knowledge vs Fantasy?

[Gregoshi]

Knowledge vs Wisdom vs Ignorance vs Fantasy...in a Steel Cage match. Winner claims Reality! :thumbsup:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Knowledge vs Fantasy?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is fantasy?

[Rhyfelwyr]

We don't have enough fundamentalists on this board... We only have Zain, and he doesnt put up much of a fight.

The rest are just religious pickers, pick this, leave that... :dizzy2:

Can someone invite a true fundie? It would further the discussion...

*waves*

There is a difference, however, between a fundamentalist and a literalist. A fundamentalist believes the whole Bible is the inspired word of God and free from error, whereas a literalist believes Jesus is a branch.

The whole earth being 6,000 years old thing comes from the calculations of James Ussher, bishop of Armagh, some time in the mid-17th century. However, he presumed that in the main genealogies of the OT, that every person mentioned in them was the actual son of the previous one.

But there are several problems with this approach. First of all, the Hebrew word used doesn't actually mean "son", it just means some form of direct descent. So when Matthew calls Jesus "Jesus, son of David, son of Abraham" (Matthew 1:1), that hasn't reduced the age of the earth to just over 2,000 years old for us today. Also, the numbers of names listed in the genealogies is significant. To quote from one article (the one given below):

Typically when a genealogy is telescoped, the number of names is reduced to an aesthetically pleasing number, usually a multiple of either 7 or 10 and less important names are omitted until that number is reached. For example, the genealogy of Genesis 4:17-18 contains 7 names. The genealogies in Genesis 5:3-32; 11:10-26; and Ruth 4:18-22 all have 10 names each. The genealogy of the nations (Genesis 10:2-29; 1 Chronicles 1:5-23) contains 70 names. Matthew arranged his genealogy (Matthew 1:2-17) into 3 groups of 14 names each. There are 14 names from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile, and 14 from the exile to Jesus Christ. To get the groups of 14, Matthew omitted at least 4 names (see below) and counted Jeconiah's name twice. (See Matthew's Genealogy on page 16.) Matthew clearly indicates in his gospel that that arrangement was intentional (Matthew 1:17). Whereas Matthew's genealogy is broken into sections, Luke's genealogy (Luke 3:23-28) is given as a single list. Luke has 14 names from Abraham to David, 21 from David to the exile, and 21 from the exile to Jesus Christ (in contrast to Matthew's 14 names each). Luke also has an additional 21 names from Abraham back to Adam. (See Luke's Genealogy on page 17.)

This makes sense given the function of the genealogies, which tended to be for things such as keeping the priestly line in the OT, or proving Jesus descent from David because of the prophecy about that etc.

This article (http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/the-genesis-genealogies) shows that you can be a fundamentalist and believe the earth is over 6,000 years old (more that that, it seems to indicate that you should).

Of course, I don't believe you can reconcile evolution with the Bible, then I would just be picking and choosing. I don't have the knowledge to make a really informed decision about it, neither do most people who think they do, and so I just take it on faith that God created Adam as the first human, simply because it's part of a much larger worldview. So shoot me.

[Aemilius Paulus]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is fantasy?
Is it really so difficult to plagiarise every myth/religion/belief preceding yours, especially Zoroastrianism and Mithraism, and then call it a new, 'wise', and most heinously, 'the only true' religion? There is literally almost nothing unique as far as the major concepts go in the Bible or Christianity as a religion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is it really so difficult to plagiarise every myth/religion/belief preceding yours, especially Zoroastrianism and Mithraism, and then call it a new, 'wise', and most heinously, 'the only true' religion? There is literally almost nothing unique as far as the major concepts go in the Bible or Christianity as a religion.

Grace?

Find that somewhere else, as in unmerited, uncontractural salvation achieved solely through love.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Grace?

Find that somewhere else, as in unmerited, uncontractural salvation achieved solely through love.
Find that in the Old Testament. The Bible is overtly contradictory anyhow. And the last time I checked, up until recently, fear was the main trump card of a priest proselyting... People nowadays mainly say they "love God", but not too long ago everyone affirmed their piety by insisting they "feared God".

That said, I am sure it is not too difficult to find holes in that. So how about Hinduism and the bhakti marga? Same principle - love brings salvation. Read Joseph Campbell. His works will show you how similar everything is. And he is no random demagogue. No, he is the father of comparative religion, in the sense that he is the most respected figure in the field. There are four yogas, four paths to moksha, the liberation of the soul from the samsara. They are raja, jnana, karma, and bhakti. Meditation and self-mastery, knowledge, work, and love (all respectively). The four paths.

[Rhyfelwyr]

There is literally almost nothing unique as far as the major concepts go in the Bible or Christianity as a religion.

That depends on what 'view' of Christianity you're talking about though.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Find that in the Old Testament. The Bible is overtly contradictory anyhow. And the last time I checked, up until recently, fear was the main trump card of a priest proselyting... People nowadays mainly say they "love God", but not too long ago everyone affirmed their piety by insisting they "feared God".

That's Augustine, 350 years after Jesus died. The Bible is not a "book", it is a collection of writings.


That said, I am sure it is not too difficult to find holes in that. So how about Hinduism and the bhakti marga? Same principle - love brings salvation. Read Joseph Campbell. His works will show you how similar everything is. And he is no random demagogue. No, he is the father of comparative religion, in the sense that he is the most respected figure in the field. There are four yogas, four paths to moksha, the liberation of the soul from the samsara. They are raja, jnana, karma, and bhakti. Meditation and self-mastery, knowledge, work, and love (all respectively). The four paths.

Christianity has only one path though, doesn't it?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Christianity has only one path though, doesn't it?
Bollox. Please do not seriously tell me you believe in that. I have not read one respected, objective theologian who insists Christianity is but one path. On the contrary, Smith and Campbell, the two chief authorities, argue to the opposite of what you proclaimed.

And what difference would it make, that Christianity has only one path anyway? I was pointing out that nearly everything in Christianity is plagiarised, to put it harshly. If Christianity has one path and it is not unique, then what difference does it make? My point remains. I never claimed the structure of Christianity was identical. But the details. All the details are virtually the same, although they may be re-arranged to custom-tailor the religion.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bollox. Please do not seriously tell me you believe in that. I have not read one respected, objective theologian who insists Christianity is but one path. On the contrary, Smith and Campbell, the two chief authorities, argue to the opposite of what you proclaimed.

And what difference would it make, that Christianity has only one path anyway? I was pointing out that nearly everything in Christianity is plagiarised, to put it harshly. If Christianity has one path and it is not unique, then what difference does it make? My point remains. I never claimed the structure of Christianity was identical. But the details. All the details are virtually the same, although they may be re-arranged to custom-tailor the religion.

Campbell's work was based on his own religious beliefs (Total Nominalism). So.... No more reliable than anyone else he was also not a Theologian, but a mythologist.

In any case, demonstrate Grace is not unique to Christianity. That there is only one path is itself a unique aspect.

[Aemilius Paulus]

So how do you explain this?: Mithra was god who took on the human form and was in fact born of a virgin. If such origins are not similar enough, he belonged to the holy trinity and was the link between Heaven and Earth. Not surprisingly, he ascended into heaven after his death - he was in a tomb and it took him three days to be resurrected. Folowers of Mithraism believe in heaven and hell (with demons), a day of judgment, practise baptism, refer to Mithra as 'the Light of the World', 'Sheperd', 'Redeemer/Saviour', or even the 'Messiah'. They eat bread and drink of wine to symbolise Mithra's flesh and blood.

On top of this, Mithra had twelve companions and he travelled around, performing miracles. As in any religion, teaching of the great flood are in Mithraism as well. Oh, and of course, no wonder the Church made December 25th, the midnight, as Christ's official B-day. 'Cause Mithra's birthday was on the same date. Coincidence? Everyone knows that the Church merely wanted to monopolise on the worship on that date. Just as Mithra's day was Sunday.

I am not even going into Zoroastrianism yet... But it was the earliest example, without the messianic figure the likes of Jesus and Mithra.

[Aemilius Paulus]

In any case, demonstrate Grace is not unique to Christianity. That there is only one path is itself a unique aspect.
Look, I am not saying Christianity is a literal carbon copy of some single religion. Christianity takes practically its every concept, belief, story from someone else, often a number of faiths, and puts it in some place within its structure. You cannot expect one religion to be identical to the other - a bit of cosmetic change is needed to get people upgrade from Judaism 1.0 to Christianity 2.0.

People will not buy Windows 7 if it has absolutely zero new features and does not look different. But if it is more streamlined, merely looks different, and is given out at a lower price (Christianity was available and advertised to everyone, unlike some other religions), then people will swallow it, despite the fact it actually has less features than Vista, and still consumes vastly more resources than XP.

Grace is little different from the main tenets of Mithraism or Bhakti marga, which is where Mithraism got its idea, which was in turn 'borrowed' by Christianity. The concept is the same, save for a few aesthetic details.

BTW, good job on overlooking that the Old Testament bears little real relation to the New one though... That was quite a steal from the Jews... Not many religions can take something and adopt it practically without changing it and then call it their own... Forget the fact that the Old Testament champions entirely different laws, regulations, paths to salvation, morals, themes, etc... :S

EDIT:

That depends on what 'view' of Christianity you're talking about though.
Well yeah, I mean, I am not calling Christians idiots or anything. Someone gets a same base and everyone goes different ways from the same source. That is only natural. That is why I am not taking anything but the Bible and Early Christianity (which already had wildly differing views of course, but meh, at least they were in the beginning stages of the development).

[Rhyfelwyr]

BTW, good job on overlooking that the Old Testament bears little real relation to the New one though... That was quite a steal from the Jews... Not many religions can take something and adopt it practically without changing it and then call it their own... Forget the fact that the Old Testament champions entirely different laws, regulations, paths to salvation, morals, themes, etc... :S

The whole NT is about the fulfilment of the OT. In the OT, God gave all the ceremonial laws to the Jews as a curse for making the golden calf, but with the promise that their messiah would come eventually. The fancy laws and regulations for the Jewish peope are described in the NT as being symbolic of everything that Christ would do.

Also, things like the Ten Commandments did serve a purpose, just not what the people thought they did at the time. So whereas the Jewish people thought they had to live by some set laws to earn a place in heaven, Christ comes along at tells them that the strictness of the law only served to show them that they couldn't follow it by their own merit, and that it should have driven them to seek redemption through him instead. Otherwise, how would the language of David in the Psalms make any sense? He always speaks of his redeemer, his rock, his foundations etc... do these sound like the words of a man whose following the law by himself? No, because his failure to fulfil the law pointed him to Christ. That's why many Reformed theologians argue that Old and New Covenants were one and the same in that they were both rooted in Christ's blood; however the means were different, with the latter pointing lifting the curse of the law and pointing us to Christ more directly.

Granted, the OT and NT appear very different, in that the first speaks of salvation through works, the latter through regeneration by God. The OT is all about symbolism and ethnic Israel foreshadowing the journey of all Christians (Hebrews 7-11), the NT is about restoring the link to God more directly.


Well yeah, I mean, I am not calling Christians idiots or anything. Someone gets a same base and everyone goes different ways from the same source. That is only natural. That is why I am not taking anything but the Bible and Early Christianity (which already had wildly differing views of course, but meh, at least they were in the beginning stages of the development).

For most Christians though, their beliefs are justified by the fact that they are supposed to be the same as those of the early Christians.

Also, regarding Mithra etc, I thought these 'similarities' with the Bible weren't really taken seriously? These points pop up a lot on the TWC's religious forum, but the hardline atheists there (a guy called Tankbuster in particular if you know him) say that these theories are rubbish and were largely conjured up by some German historians in the 19th Century with a lack of any serious evidence.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The whole NT is about the fulfilment of the OT. In the OT, God gave all the ceremonial laws to the Jews as a curse for making the golden calf, but with the promise that their messiah would come eventually. The fancy laws and regulations for the Jewish peope are described in the NT as being symbolic of everything that Christ would do.

Also, things like the Ten Commandments did serve a purpose, just not what the people thought they did at the time. So whereas the Jewish people thought they had to live by some set laws to earn a place in heaven, Christ comes along at tells them that the strictness of the law only served to show them that they couldn't follow it by their own merit, and that it should have driven them to seek redemption through him instead. Otherwise, how would the language of David in the Psalms make any sense? He always speaks of his redeemer, his rock, his foundations etc... do these sound like the words of a man whose following the law by himself? No, because his failure to fulfil the law pointed him to Christ. That's why many Reformed theologians argue that Old and New Covenants were one and the same in that they were both rooted in Christ's blood; however the means were different, with the latter pointing lifting the curse of the law and pointing us to Christ more directly.

Granted, the OT and NT appear very different, in that the first speaks of salvation through works, the latter through regeneration by God. The OT is all about symbolism and ethnic Israel foreshadowing the journey of all Christians (Hebrews 7-11), the NT is about restoring the link to God more directly.

Yah, you think this is a first time I heard this? People go through colossal feats of logic, knowledge, resources, pure effort and most of all, stupidity, to justify their faith. I am not pointing fingers at anyone because everyone is doing it. I can justify anything using your logic. Anything. The point that irked me the most, though, was what would happen to Jews after Christ came? Why in the blooping heel would God, the epitome of all tings reactionary, stable, unchanging, etc turn a whole religion upside down and force people to accept an entirely new truth after believing in another truth for millennia after millenia? Yah, right.

And seriously, how many millions were slaughtered by God's commands in the Old Testament? You had thousands murdered for the smallest of things, sometimes so small, it becomes laughable. How does Jesus' principle of "turning the other cheek" fit into this? I mean, we are going from a Hitler to Ghandi change here. You think I will swallow that? Did God just change his morals or what?

Yes, I you may say I am simplifying things, but what is your excuse for this? I want to hear it.

Sure, I can digest the fact God gives different instructions to people. Alright. But we are talking about god himself changing. Day after day I wonder how people can remain theistic. If anything, ignorance is the chief factor. Now you and PVC are certainly not that, as you have though aplenty on this topic, but does it console you that the vast majority of your colleagues stick their heads up their rumps and flush their brains down the drains in order to adhere to their beliefs?




For most Christians though, their beliefs are justified by the fact that they are supposed to be the same as those of the early Christians.
Yeah, right. I am SURE you yourself do not believe that. Right? Please say yes. Christianity, as all religions, changes so much over time that... Well, no need to blabber any more on this aspect.


Also, regarding Mithra etc, I thought these 'similarities' with the Bible weren't really taken seriously? These points pop up a lot on the TWC's religious forum, but the hardline atheists there (a guy called Tankbuster in particular if you know him) say that these theories are rubbish and were largely conjured up by some German historians in the 19th Century with a lack of any serious evidence.
Of course they are not taking seriously. We all know they exist, we all know Mithraism existed around six hundred years before Christ and that it became popular over a wide area around the time of Jesus, but srsly, who cares? So much easier to ignore it, right? Who wants to challenge their beliefs. Happy are those who are ignorant. Change is stressful. Change is bad.

Look, Rhy, your argument(?) is pushing the boundary of farce and humour. I struggled to maintain my dignity as I was typing in the Uni library. I know nothing of TWC - the only sorts of forums I visited there were the EB forums. (nvm, I thought you meant that because so many people use my argument on TWC, it is thus rendered invalid, sorry, I misunderstood you) However, what is known is that at least half the time, commonly circulating arguments probably have good grounds. The other half, they may not. Mostly, though, every argument contains at least a portion of truth.

That said, the reason for my amusement was that one cannot simply pull such solid facts out of nothing. These are not statistics or numbers or some random hypotheses we are speaking of. Mithraism was what I said it was. That was it. Take the facts in any manner you wish, but they are there, and simply because some deranged, bile-filled atheist is spilling them with reckless fury (yeah, I know that type, sadly) does not make the facts false. Your latter part of the post was quite a logical fallacy...

I wonder where Tankbuster is coming from. Beats me. I merely know what I read in my books on comparative religion. Mithraism is quite hazily documented, but the data is still there. And Zoroastrianism gave rise to much of Mithraism, and Zoroastrian beliefs heavily correlate with those of Mithraism. Messianic cults were commonplace back then. Countless characteristics of Mithraism were borrowed from other religions - blending is what makes every religion we now of. We can point out quite a bit of the Mithraic beliefs and their origins.

No reason why Christianity is an exception. Just as any religion, it built itself on the past. And the idea it continues Judaism is racist (towards Jews, and anti-Semitic would be a slightly better term), chauvinistic, unfounded, and downright laughable. An odd sect, one among hundreds, pops out of Judea. A charismatic figure gathers a flock of followers. The religion is persecuted, but then a state endorses it. The state happens to be a vast empire, and it spreads the message. Eventually, various religious philosophers, the clergy, historians, and general academics of the time attempt to legitimise and give depth to the religion by linking it to a old religion, claiming the new religion was just a "new revelation", but then hastily add that it is also the "final revelation" as well, lest another upstart takes away the monopoly on obfuscating and milking the hapless populace. Result: much of that part of the world believes in the "new" religion. The same story happens all the time, although usually on a smaller scale.


Nothing of that is new. Look at Islam. Founded by Mohammed, who was born in a time of unimaginable looseness of morals and behaviour in Arabia. The local populace worshiped jinns, the desert spirits all around him. Except that their reverence could barely, if at all, could be constituted as 'worship'. Empty of meaning, he went to the desert hermit-philosophers. They pointed to one of the jinns who they called 'Allah'. He was the most powerful, they said, and the only true one. Mohammed believed. But around him, people did not. For his preaching, he was eventually expelled (escaped more accurately). To a place we now call Medina. They liked him there, and he administrated them, as a governor. A helluva adept one too.

Long story short, he founded what would become the Islamic, Arab Empires. Instead of using an Empire, his followers become one, and spread the message. While on the home front, Mohammed claims he is merely continuing the tradition of the Jews, and that Moses, Abraham, Noah, Jesus, etc were all great prophets, but he was the final one. There goes the legitimisation. And it always points to the Jews, who had one of the oldest, most respected religion in the region.


Exact same story. Earlier religions, however, were not mutually exclusive, but were nevertheless often forcefully imposed. Similar trends occurred.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Look, I am not saying Christianity is a literal carbon copy of some single religion. Christianity takes practically its every concept, belief, story from someone else, often a number of faiths, and puts it in some place within its structure. You cannot expect one religion to be identical to the other - a bit of cosmetic change is needed to get people upgrade from Judaism 1.0 to Christianity 2.0.

It's every concept? That is an extremely totalitarian statement, and requires justification and evidence cited from sources if you want it to stand up.


Grace is little different from the main tenets of Mithraism or Bhakti marga, which is where Mithraism got its idea, which was in turn 'borrowed' by Christianity. The concept is the same, save for a few aesthetic details.

Christianity doesn't borrow its theology from Mithraism, just some of it's forms. The list you cited in your previous post is inaccurate. Although Mithras was born of a virgin he was not the same God as his father, and his followers did not celebrate his death, but his sacrifice of a white bullock in a cave. This is why they worshipped inside, in actual caves sometimes, but built Mithraiums did influence early church arcitechture; while the use of bread and wine was borrowed from Christians.

You have, however, missed the fundamental differences. Mithras accepted only men, and warriors to boot, Mithrists also acknowledged other Gods but worshipped only Mithras.


Well yeah, I mean, I am not calling Christians idiots or anything. Someone gets a same base and everyone goes different ways from the same source. That is only natural. That is why I am not taking anything but the Bible and Early Christianity (which already had wildly differing views of course, but meh, at least they were in the beginning stages of the development).

Seems to me like you're saying anyone with a belief is an idiot.

[Kadagar_AV]

PVC,
Seems to me like you're saying anyone with a belief is an idiot.

I think our friend Aemilius Paulus does not mean that.

Having a belief is ok... Following dogma without thinking however is, well... It is ok, people can do whatever they want as long as they dont hurt others, but you can't complain when people call you an idiot.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yah, you think this is a first time I heard this? People go through colossal feats of logic, knowledge, resources, pure effort and most of all, stupidity, to justify their faith. I am not pointing fingers at anyone because everyone is doing it. I can justify anything using your logic. Anything. The point that irked me the most, though, was what would happen to Jews after Christ came? Why in the blooping heel would God, the epitome of all tings reactionary, stable, unchanging, etc turn a whole religion upside down and force people to accept an entirely new truth after believing in another truth for millennia after millenia? Yah, right.

The thing is, I'm don't think that the early Christians really were that different from the Jews. Although some atheists use the term "Jesus sect" mockingly, it's really quite appropriate for what was a liberal messianic offshoot of Judaism. After Christianity became accepted in the Roman Empire, it did of course change dramatically. But before Christians actively tried to dissasociate themselves from Jews by doing things like changing the sabbath, they really musn't have appeared that different. At the end of the day, both Jews and Christians still follow the Ten Commandments, and the same moral law in general. They share concepts such as a sabbath day and it is for both Saturday (although Jesus was morelaid back about it). The biggest difference is in terms of the ceremonial practices of the Jews, however it should be remembered that these were only ever given by God to ethnic Israel, and not Gentiles. So I think Christianity's break from it's Jewish roots was a very gradual process, and they have been increasingly revived through several theories. For example, the idea of 'spiritual Israel', or even more ethnic based, British Israelism.


And seriously, how many millions were slaughtered by God's commands in the Old Testament? You had thousands murdered for the smallest of things, sometimes so small, it becomes laughable. How does Jesus' principle of "turning the other cheek" fit into this? I mean, we are going from a Hitler to Ghandi change here. You think I will swallow that? Did God just change his morals or what?

Yes, I you may say I am simplifying things, but what is your excuse for this? I want to hear it.

Sure, I can digest the fact God gives different instructions to people. Alright. But we are talking about god himself changing. Day after day I wonder how people can remain theistic. If anything, ignorance is the chief factor. Now you and PVC are certainly not that, as you have though aplenty on this topic, but does it console you that the vast majority of your colleagues stick their heads up their rumps and flush their brains down the drains in order to adhere to their beliefs?

Regarding 'turning the other cheek', that is due to the fact that Jesus says that all judgment rests with God alone.

Also, I don't think that God changes in the NT from the OT. People always say how Jesus says God is all about love etc... but at the same time, remember, Jesus believed that God was going to send the majority of mankind to burn in hell. This 'paradox' of a wrathful/loving God isn't between the genocidal God of the OT and the loving God of the NT, since those stereotypes are wrong. It's very much a paradox of the NT.

Indeed, I feel that many Christians today do not try to adress this apparent paradox. They say that my understanding of Christianity (Calvinism) is hypoctrical since Jesus was so accepting... they seem to be forgetting that Jesus would turn people away if they refused to surrender everything when they would leave to join him. They say Jesus was always about forgiveness, and yet as I said above, he believed most people were going to a very nasty place. Frequently I've been told that Puritans/Presbyterians etc put the message of the OT over the NT, but it seems to me like these people are just picking and choosing the bits they like from the NT.

As to whether this is in fact a paradox or not, that would require a big theological discussion. Generally, I would say it boils down to a case of 'tough love' - Jesus is accepting of even the worst of sinner, but only when they come in genuine repentance.


Yeah, right. I am SURE you yourself do not believe that. Right? Please say yes. Christianity, as all religions, changes so much over time that... Well, no need to blabber any more on this aspect.

I don't quite understand what you're saying there, but I believe there is one true Christian faith. I don't believe we become Christians because we are raised in a certain environment, one that has changed dramatically over the centuries with various historic forces, political maneuvres etc. Rather, I attribute it to the regenerative power of Christ. I'm sure it seems silly to non-Christians, but it's a pretty central idea to the faith.

Of course, this does not mean that I am not aware of just how much 'Christianity' has changed ever since it became institutionalised and prone to corruption. To borrow Ian Paisley's phrase, I believe 'Bible Protestantism' is the true continuation of what the earliest Christians believed.


Of course they are not taking seriously. We all know they exist, we all know Mithraism existed around six hundred years before Christ and that it became popular over a wide area around the time of Jesus, but srsly, who cares? So much easier to ignore it, right? Who wants to challenge their beliefs. Happy are those who are ignorant. Change is stressful. Change is bad.

Look, Rhy, your argument(?) is pushing the boundary of farce and humour. I struggled to maintain my dignity as I was typing in the Uni library. I know nothing of TWC - the only sorts of forums I visited there were the EB forums. (nvm, I thought you meant that because so many people use my argument on TWC, it is thus rendered invalid, sorry, I misunderstood you) However, what is known is that at least half the time, commonly circulating arguments probably have good grounds. The other half, they may not. Mostly, though, every argument contains at least a portion of truth.

I lol'd at the misunderstanding, that would have been a spectacular ad hominem if I had meant that. :laugh4:

My point was simply that from what I've seen, many of these stories of startling similarities between various ancient Gods and Jesus are not really so spectacular once people get the facts straight. Of course, I would expect there to be some degree of truth in them, considering how people so often traded myths and Gods around these times. However, to use them as proof that Christianity is plagiarised is a bit unfair from what I've seen (I'm no expert just going from what little I know on this). Here's an example (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=56232&highlight=zeitgeist+mithra) of one of the threads I'm talking about at the TWC.

It just seems that these Zeitgeist theories are part of a slightly 'tacky' atheist culture which seems to have been spawned by internet debates between militant atheists and US Evangelical fundamentalists. Other elements of this culture, like the whole "religion causes wars" thing can be cringeworthy at times. Of course, we Christians are just as bad, and we argue in turn how Hitler was an atheist and that Darwin's theory of evolution caused the Holocuast. But so goes the magical world of the internet (except here, of course).

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't quite understand what you're saying there, but I believe there is one true Christian faith. I don't believe we become Christians because we are raised in a certain environment, one that has changed dramatically over the centuries with various historic forces, political maneuvres etc. Rather, I attribute it to the regenerative power of Christ. I'm sure it seems silly to non-Christians, but it's a pretty central idea to the faith.


Are you kidding?

Would be interesting to see how you back that up.

Logic tells me that there are WAY more, say, American christians with christian parents, than chinese christians with non-christian parents...

[Aemilius Paulus]

Are you kidding?
Hey, religion never makes any sense, nor conforms to any school of logic ever devised... On the contrary, it (mainly the Christians while proselyting) exploits nearly every logical fallacy taught in your average secondary/post-secondary English Composition and Writing classes...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Are you kidding?

Would be interesting to see how you back that up.

Logic tells me that there are WAY more, say, American christians with christian parents, than chinese christians with non-christian parents...

Bah! American Evanglicalism, Orthodox, Roman Catholic Church are just torture poor souls with all the trappings of the whore of Babylon!

Most people that call themselves Christians today aren't really part of the true church. Yes how shockingly intolerant of me, Jesus accepted everyone, right!?

The only time God's promises are granted through generations of families is when they are part of the original covenant with ethnic Israel. Just like us God-fearing Protestants of Ulster and Scotland! We are the descendents of the lost tribes of Israel! Cú Chullain and then the Culdees have defended us from the pagan Romanists ever since they arrived on the British Isles from Spain! But now the beast is attacking the earthly inheritance of God's chosen people, and the Pope will desecrate the temple mount when he declares a new era of peace in the middle east and shows himself to be the antichrist! And this will coincide with a united Ireland and the break up of the Union. Coincidence?! No, Israel is foreshadowing the final persecution of the God's people by the harlot church, and the fate of all Christians will be synonymous with that of ethnic Israel as the Book of Revelation plays itself out.

Am I being a crazy enough fundamentalist now?

[Wishazu]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is fantasy?

In my experience, yes.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Am I being a crazy enough fundamentalist now?
You have always been so :wink::tongue:

[Kadagar_AV]

Bah! American Evanglicalism, Orthodox, Roman Catholic Church are just torture poor souls with all the trappings of the whore of Babylon!

Most people that call themselves Christians today aren't really part of the true church. Yes how shockingly intolerant of me, Jesus accepted everyone, right!?

The only time God's promises are granted through generations of families is when they are part of the original covenant with ethnic Israel. Just like us God-fearing Protestants of Ulster and Scotland! We are the descendents of the lost tribes of Israel! Cú Chullain and then the Culdees have defended us from the pagan Romanists ever since they arrived on the British Isles from Spain! But now the beast is attacking the earthly inheritance of God's chosen people, and the Pope will desecrate the temple mount when he declares a new era of peace in the middle east and shows himself to be the antichrist! And this will coincide with a united Ireland and the break up of the Union. Coincidence?! No, Israel is foreshadowing the final persecution of the God's people by the harlot church, and the fate of all Christians will be synonymous with that of ethnic Israel as the Book of Revelation plays itself out.

Am I being a crazy enough fundamentalist now?

:idea2:

You had me for a second...

Good one though!

I wouldnt mind you answer my original question though:yes:

[Reenk Roink]

I probably shouldn't but the Backroom topics are so boring now (especially that Tribesman is on break)...

Aemilius Paulus, the content of your posts in their wording and facts cited are quite sloppy.

You mention Campbell as a source when dealing with the influence of Mithraism on early Christianity (actually you name Campbell explicitly in a related but different avenue, but I am going to go ahead and assume that he was also one of the authors of the "books on comparative religion" you mentioned you had read). Campbell is certainly an authority in the field, however, while you seem to agree with on his conclusion on the Mithratic influence on Christianity, I request you actually go and read his actual exposition on HOW he came to those conclusions. Taking the virgin birth motif for an example, take a look at the "virgin birth" of Mithras as compared to that of Christ. Some other authorities (and pure laymen like myself) look at the inference and judgment made by Campbell to be exceptionally tenuous and questionable...

The pre-Islamic Arabs did believe and even worship jinns, but they also had straight up gods like Uzza and crew (and the distinction is very significant). Allah to the pre-Islamic Arabs was a god (the major God), not a jinn.

You've used the word 'logic' extremely loosely in many places, can I call you out to actually explicate what the heck you mean by the following claim?


Hey, religion never makes any sense, nor conforms to any school of logic ever devised...

See, I'd argue that religion actually does a pretty nice job of 'conforming' to at least one 'school of logic' (let's say classical logic for ease). Take Nicean Christianity for example, the only difficulties one might run into logically with contradictions are the trinity aspect and perhaps the predestination vs. free will debate. Of course, the theologians throughout the years have loved to talk at length about these and how they don't pose any problems.

[Centurion1]

Find that in the Old Testament. The Bible is overtly contradictory anyhow. And the last time I checked, up until recently, fear was the main trump card of a priest proselyting... People nowadays mainly say they "love God", but not too long ago everyone affirmed their piety by insisting they "feared God".

lol not in the old testament. Old testament is not as "nice" as the new testament

[Hax]

The pre-Islamic Arabs did believe and even worship jinns, but they also had straight up gods like Uzza and crew (and the distinction is very significant). Allah to the pre-Islamic Arabs was a god (the major God), not a jinn.

Allat was a moon god, if I recall.


lol not in the old testament. Old testament is not as "nice" as the new testament

Clearly somebody has forgotten Revelations. "Nicety" is relative.

[Papewaio]

Yes...?
"You might be a redneck if...you watch nascar and drink domestic pisswater instead of heineken"


Yes substituting domestic pisswater for foreign pisswater isn't always the best.




How about the cognitive dissonance involved in accepting the foundation and being upset about the fruits?

"Oh no, my apple tree grew apples!"

The foundation for an apple tree is very rarely actually an apple tree. They are far more commonly grafted onto another tree. As such the foundation and the fruit are separate...