Evolution v Creationism

[Rhyfelwyr]

"God's name is Jehovah and he exists everywhere at once while being invisible and watches everything you do and is a force of good and mercy and compassion but he does nothing to stop war or genocides and he will burn you forever and ever in a burning pit of agony should you fail to exercise the free will that he gave you and the mind that he gave you and the independent spirit that he gave you to question the assumptions of men in funny robes and hats who claim to talk to God, because it's absolutely for sure that they know what they talk about but the man on the street corner who babbles about God doesn't know what he's talking about at all because that's somehow different from Revelation and of course the earth was created in 6 days and an all-powerful God needs to rest once a week and likes animal sacrifice and will destroy the earth using an ARMY someday rather than just poofing the evil out of existence like a God would and he must physically capture satan and put him in the lake of fire because somehow with his infinite Q-like power he can't just obliterate Satan using his mind."

The problem is that so much there is just plain wrong. I don't have a problem with people attacking the idea of Christianity, but if they want to go into specifics then they should get it right.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The problem is that so much there is just plain wrong. I don't have a problem with people attacking the idea of Christianity, but if they want to go into specifics then they should get it right.

Perhaps there is hyperbole in there, but so far as I'm aware most of it is correct. However, if you'll agree to the definition of knowledge and belief as found in a mutually agreed upon dictionary, I'll agree that the teachings of your religion are precisely what it says in your Bible and no one else's, and especially not what they teach to children or to people who attend church.

Also, we're now quibbling over the specifics of a religion, but you don't deny that the religion's teachings are a long series of assumptions which aren't supported by fact in the way science does. So you concede that it was a relevant example, even if some data was flawed. I'll use the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun in a Magic Box religion next time as an example, to avoid confusion, misinterpretation, or offending anyone's sensibilities.

[InsaneApache]

I'm constantly amazed at how some people could take as fact the ramblings of an iron age psychotic who couldn't get his hands on any lithium. But that's just me.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm constantly amazed at how some people could take as fact the ramblings of an iron age psychotic who couldn't get his hands on any lithium. But that's just me.

To be honest, I find much of what the religion teaches to be of value to people of that era. Some of it not so much.

These days we have education, philosophy, freedom of religion, ethics, law... many things which fill in the goal of a church or especially a state sponsored church. And I say people can believe in the ramblings of a man from thousands of years ago... some philosophers who lived around the time of classical Greece were valuable thinkers, some men were saintly, some men held belief but also made logical sense and contributed positively. People can also freely choose to join the church of Scientology if they want, or start their own religion. Doesn't bother me; just don't call it "knowledge" and speak as if you know something the rest of us do not, because you can't. You don't have access to something the rest of us do not unless you're claiming to actually BE God or Godlike. In which case, a simple demonstration of your power would convince me. Cure all the world's diseases in the next 24 hours.

I am timing you. And...... go!

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm constantly amazed at how some people could take as fact the ramblings of an iron age psychotic who couldn't get his hands on any lithium. But that's just me.

Do you think I am a Christian because I read the Bible and it convinced me, or instead that I became a Christian and then felt compelled to read the Bible?

[InsaneApache]

Do you think I am a Christian because I read the Bible and it convinced me, or instead that I became a Christian and then felt compelled to read the Bible?

My view is brainwashing.

[Rhyfelwyr]

My view is brainwashing.

So I brainwashed myself?

[InsaneApache]

So I brainwashed myself?

So are you trying to tell me that you woke up one morning, having never heard of christianity, never been exposed to the bible and decided that it would be nice if you became a christian?

Why not a hindu/moslem/buddhist/zoroastran/b'haism/scientologist/moonie/jew/sikh/jainism/baal?

[Kadagar_AV]

ATPG>>> I applaud your first post...

ajaxfetish>>>

I know you guys have carried on along this line, but this is the point where it's easiest for me to address. Science does indeed rely on certain assumptions about the nature of the universe: assumptions which cannot be proven, however difficult it may be to imagine them being wrong.

Yes AND no. "Rely" is the wrong word to use. If we would all one day wake up and realise that we are all someones imagination then science could deal with it. Again, science is neutral. Change the facts and science will change with it.

religion however is static, why else would religion have fought against science so hard?

There is some assumptions such as: "I think, therefor I exist". These are NOT universal TRUTHS, but something we can universably agree on. Religions assumptions is something the world as a whole can NOT agree on. No matter what religion you choose you will always belong to a minority.

So to compare the basic assumptions of religion and science is not doable. And they are def not on an equal footing.

This makes no sense to me. Why should I need to prove my religion to you? What does it matter to you? I hate fish. Do I need to prove to you that fish are abominable, or can't I just hold that as a personal opinion, even express it in a public setting, and be tolerated for it? I have no interest in proving your pink invisible unicorn belief wrong. I really don't care whether you believe in them.

If I was proselytizing you, or trying to convince you my faith is correct, then I could see a reason for you to take issue with me. But just refusing to tolerate me for my mindset?

Where did you get that from? You might want to re-read what I had written.

My point was: religion is based on faith *am I repeating myself, I think I am*. If you want a scientific debate, you will have to leave faith out of it.

We can either have a discussion where you base your arguments on a faith in god, and I base my arguments on the belief in a invisible pink unicorn... Or we can decide to leave faith out of the debate and instead back our arguments up with scientific arguments.


Rhyfelwyr>>>

Maybe I misunderstood, but I think Reenk Roink was simply arguing that the metaphysical preumptions which creationism makes does not mean that science cannot be used to prove it, as Kadagar suggested.

Science can never prove that a faith is wrong. And since creationism is based on faith, science can't prove it wrong. Science can only adress the scientifical claims creationism makes, however, science can never attack the foundation of creationism (and have no intent on doing it either).

If some people want to believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns, or in God, or Allah, or Fire-Breathing Leprechaun in a Magic Box and so on, fine... Science has nothing against it! In fact, very many scientists belong to one religion or another.

Do you think I am a Christian because I read the Bible and it convinced me, or instead that I became a Christian and then felt compelled to read the Bible?

Who cares? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Strike For The South]

I didn't get shot into an acidy hole, beat out 100 million look alikes, force my way into an egg and lose my tail to get shot out of said hole and then immedaitly worry about the meaning of life and why we are here. I'm going to secs and booze have fun playing Plato.