As intelligent design becomes more and more accepted as the common belief amoung theoligians, this will replace the current paradigm of creationsim (read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions to understand this).
I hold that atheists have higher moral values than those who believe in a higher being. Atheists (or agnostics) base morals on their personal beliefs. Religious morals are relevant. One prime example is George Bush and his religious aid.
I have not made any great study of ID. It isn't really a big story on this side of the Atlantic, where Christianity is in such decline that only 7-10% regularly attend church. From what little I do know, it is certainly a step up from pure Creationism and perhaps more like what the ancient authors of the Biblical account would come up with had they known a lot more about the universe in which they found themselves. Ultimately though, what you believe is less important than how those beliefs influence your actions and in that respect atheism and religion are equal. It is true that atheists can do 'good' without being coerced by the carrot and stick of divine reward and punishment, but I think that most of the 'humanist' principles that positive atheists try to adhere to can often be traced back to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Because if I assume that God just exists, without further proof, I might as well accept without proof that the universe just exists.
Perhaps, but let me put forth my own opinion on the matter of EvID. First off, I hope that in any discussion that I will not flame others, degrade a certain group of people, simplify this argument more than need be to prove a valid point, and otherwise act improperly. If I do, I have faith that you will correct me promptly. Keep in mind that the only sheep, I believe (and I've said this before), are those who consider nothing more important than themselves. Now let me begin with what we know and what we have to learn...
The Big Bang Theory
Interesting theory. Energy expands outward from a singularity, which begins to form matter, which in turn begins to form the known galaxies, stars, and planets. What caused this singularity is uncertain.
Brane Theory
This is a theory that tries to tie the loose ends of the Big Bang together and proposes a solution to what may have caused the singularity to form. Here we have five dimensions and many branes (or membranes). One "world" collides with another world in the fifth dimension, thus forming the Big Bang.
Theory of Evolution
There are two types of evolution.
Macroevolution
Microevolution
Athiests and agnostics, who - of course - generally do not believe in a god or the God (a supreme being, having created all things), hold to the concept of macroevolution or else ambiguity. Macroevolution, from my understanding of it, states that life formed several billion years ago from the basic constituents of the universe combining themselves by chance occurrence (cause and effect).
It is more probable that life formed in the ocean rather than on land. Some argue that it is even more probable that life formed elsewhere than our planet, given the current timeline and allowance for life to form due to large impacts from meteors. See panspermia.
Microevolution states that there are mutations over short or long intervals of time to produce in classes of living beings varying traits and adaptations. It's held that through these mutations, one class of being compounds to form further classes with genetic diversity as outside circumstances coerce them to adapt or merely change. Is microevolution observable? I would think so. Is macroevolution observable? Not so far.
Panspermia
This belief holds that life originated elsewhere in our universe and somehow hitched a ride with an asteroid to hurdle through space and crash into our planet, thus seeding it with life. This raises a few questions. How long could the microorganisms (or other life) on the asteroid survive through space before dying or otherwise breaking down? Could they survive the entry into our atmosphere or lack thereof during this time? Could they survive the impact?
Polytheism
This is the belief in more than one god. While the current english definition of a god allows for polytheism, reason tends to protest this system of beliefs. First off if there are two gods, then which one is supreme? Is the god who is less supreme any more than a man, given great power? If not, then should we worship this man or powerful (yet limited) being? Does absolute power make a god? Alone, I would have to say no. I believe what would constitute a god would be a being whose current or growing power will never be achieved or surpassed by another being. The second part of my belief is that this being must have created the universe, multiverse, or sum total of worlds with the knowledge to undo and redo such a creation.
If polytheism is no more than the worship of men or of beings of varying powers, then is it right? If not, then which ultimate god of polytheism or singular god of monotheism is the right one if any? Well, which one makes the most sense? Do none of them make more sense than the belief in an eternal self-governing universe?
Christianity
This is the belief in Christ as the savior of man and the son of God as well as the doctrine of Christ to further the quality of life in every way possible. That is my opinion on it from observation. The term Christian means belonging to Christ. It tends to imply, in my mind, Christ-like as well. After all, an acorn belonging to an oak does not grow a fish when planted in the ground. Acorns do not belong to fish. I hope many of you may understand this by now. What are the principles of Christ? I believe they are: Love your neighbor as yourself and love God with your whole (in short).
Does this mean tacking people to stakes who refuse to conform to your system of beliefs and burning them? Does it mean drilling a hole in their heads to rid them of evil spirits in order to save their soul? Does it mean forcing people to conform to your religion when the scripture, itself, states that God wants people to worship him in spirit and in truth (implying of free will or not at all). Are Christians capable of such ignorance? I think so, but one has to ask themselves if the "Christian" doing this really knows how to be saved or how to be a true Christian if they are so openly ignorant of the truths of Christ/God's doctrine held in scripture. Are they acting Christ-like (or Christian) when they do such things? No.
Pascal's Wager
This is the argument that if you have choice one and choice two, and if in the betting on of choice one you lose nothing but have a chance at gaining everything and in the betting on of choice two you win nothing but have the chance of losing everything, which one will you choose? If there is a God and you bet on him, then you gain everything and lose nothing. If there is no God and you bet on him, then you gain nothing, but also lose nothing. If there is a God and you bet against him, then you gain nothing and lose everything. If there is no God and you bet against him, then you gain nothing and lose nothing.
Which choice appeals to your reason? Now, it may be like betting on the lottery (for free) in which you have a very little chance to win, but if you choose not to bet on the lottery, then you gain nothing. Now if macroevolution is unprovable, the big bang is a theory, and religion is ambiguous what will you wager on? Will you forsake reason and go with religion? Will you forsake religion, placing your life in the hands of countless uncertainties with potentially nothing to gain and everything to lose? Will you sit on the fence? Or will you join religion and hold to reason, constantly questioning your own religion and the religions around you?
Pascal was right in one respect, but wrong in another in my belief. As you may have guessed, I am a Christian. We were made in the image of God and therefore we may learn something of God by looking at ourselves. God is not a concept so ambiguous that we can not grasp the knowledge or understanding of him (I use him out of respect for authority - not an appeal to a specific gender). And to prove my point, throughout the whole of religion, gods have been either 1. made in the image of man or 2. have made man in their image. There is a relation between us and therefore a certainty of attainable knowledge if one endeavours to discover this knowledge and thus the true identity of the supreme being.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather "Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
Originally posted by Marauder Of course, a big bang that results in all the planets and life forming isn't magical....here's my question: Where did the big bang come from? Like I said, evolution takes just as much belief as believing in God. Calling it science doesn't make it any less of a belief system. [...] The whole using religion to explain unknowns....isn't that exactly what science attempts to do? Once again, calling it science does not mean it does not require a belief.
A somewhat late answer, but I think it is important: No, reputable scientists do not claim to have final, irrevocable truth. It will, however, sometimes appear that way, because a theory is supported by abundant proof. Like gravity, which meshes so well with observations in real life that you will find it hard to convince a pysicist that it is wrong. But a good scientist would be willing to reconsider if you show him a river that is running up the hill or something similar. In things that are not supported by much evidence, a good scientist will not claim certainty in the first place. And this is the fundamental difference: Science is for people who can live with ambiguity. If you desire security in your beliefs, the "bleeding edge" of science is not a good place for you. Because it means going into the unknown and sometimes having to reconsider what you thought you know for sure.
A somewhat late answer, but I think it is important: No, reputable scientists do not claim to have final, irrevocable truth. It will, however, sometimes appear that way, because a theory is supported by abundant proof. Like gravity, which meshes so well with observations in real life that you will find it hard to convince a pysicist that it is wrong. But a good scientist would be willing to reconsider if you show him a river that is running up the hill or something similar. In things that are not supported by much evidence, a good scientist will not claim certainty in the first place. And this is the fundamental difference: Science is for people who can live with ambiguity. If you desire security in your beliefs, the "bleeding edge" of science is not a good place for you. Because it means going into the unknown and sometimes having to reconsider what you thought you know for sure.
Holy $hit d3wd!
Thats one of the most inteligent posts I have ever read on these boards... Marry me
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Originally posted by Marauder Of course, a big bang that results in all the planets and life forming isn't magical....here's my question: Where did the big bang come from? Like I said, evolution takes just as much belief as believing in God. Calling it science doesn't make it any less of a belief system. When I said there is no such thing as an atheist, I did not mean that everyone believes in a god as a supreme being. I merely mean everyone holds something higher than everything else, which makes that object the person's god. An atheist is merely a person who believe they, humanity, money, or some other object is a god. In effect, there is no such thing as atheism. Most atheists don't believe in a god because they believe they don't need one or won't follow anyone's rules but their own. In effect, they believe that they are god because they believe that they are more important than anything or anyone else. Just an example. The whole using religion to explain unknowns....isn't that exactly what science attempts to do? Once again, calling it science does not mean it does not require a belief. I look at the belief in gravity similar to my belief in God. You cannot PROVE gravity, but you know it exists because you can see the effects. I look at the world and see the effects of a divine being. Likewise, evolutionists look at the world and see the effects of evolution making humans a supreme being. Two different theories of creation. Both require a belief and cannot be proven scientifically. Once again, anyone who says evolution is anything less than a religious belief is kidding themselves....
Marauder....this is not an attempt to shoot down your beliefs, but you said you can not prove gravity. I see it differently.
The Universal Gravity Equation is F=G(Mm/r^2) G = the universal gravitational constant of 6.67x10^-11 N(m^2/kg^2)
M = Mass of the first object m = mass of second object r= distance between them
As I see it there is measurable proof that gravity exists and I am able to measure the effects of its force anywhere in the universe and beyond. Plus as mentioned the effects of gravity can be seen and accepted (if they so choose) by any person.
I am sure there are people involved in the sciences who have their faith in religion. That may infact be why they are involved in science. You mentioned that both sides endeavor to explain the unknowns of our universe, I would tend to agree with that assesment. While in science proof is required to back up what is said and believed, religion only requires faith in what is said and believed. Which is right and which is wrong is not up for me to decide, but what I do see is science is not afraid to be wrong or be proven wrong. Those in the scientific field know that finding a way to be wrong is one step closer to understanding how to be right. It is seen as a challenge, just because we have not found a cure for X disease, does not mean that people quit trying. I have never heard from a religion that they may have been mistaken or wrong and they are looking for the right answer. Many of those people who practice certain religions feel that only their way is correct and nothing else. Such conflict over unprovable ideals.
To paraphase what Thomas Edison said after not being able to make his lightbulb invention work until after his 2000th attempt, "I did not fail 2000 times, I just found 2000 different ways not to make a lightbulb"
Believe in whatever gives you comfort
"It is easier to be cruel than wise. The road to wisdom is long and difficult... so most people just turn out to be assholes" Feng (Christopher Walken)
Originally posted by guy232 wow what a valid argument... any ways this guy is tryin do some serious forum trolling since this is an obvois none goin to actualy agree on.
Great argument buddy. You actually going to get some facts and rebut what I said, or prove my point by just shrugging it off and pulling the whole, "troll" card?
Originally posted by dekron Now as for athiests being "bad" or "immoral" or "worshipping some other object" as being a relevant statement.... I hold that atheists have higher moral values than those who believe in a higher being. Atheists (or agnostics) base morals on their personal beliefs. Religious morals are relevant. One prime example is George Bush and his religious aid.
That's illogical. You're saying that Human whims are more powerful than law. You somehow equate self-imposed whimsical morals that could flip on the spin of a dime more potent, solid, and right, than a basis of morality that has been around for thousands of years, and judged and ruled all who did, and did not follow. Allowing for a solid code of laws that kept the foundation of such societies together.
You may be an anarchist at heart, I don't know, from the sounds of it, you are. Because self-imposed "morals" is exactly that, anarchy. It's feel good morals. If it feels good, they'll murder their family because in their minds eye, it's right.
You give an example of contradictory terms with George Bush and his religious aid - What he did, can be proven wrong by the guidelines he says he follows.
Self-imposed morals, are right in every individuals eyes that commit a wrong, and in fact, with such guidelines of self-imposement to follow, CAN NOT, be proven wrong.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
First off, I in no way was trying to bring other people to my belief. Here is my main point: I should not be studying evolution in science courses. Someone stated that religion and the government are supposed to be seperate. First off, this has nothing to do with religion being taught in schools, public or private. When the government was faounded, nearly every school taught christianity. Second off, teaching evolution is, in effect, influencing someone's belief. Anyone who says that a child being taught for 10 years that evolution is how life started is not being influenced is kidding themselves. In fact, if that was true, then education would be pointless. Teaching children that evolution is how life started should not occur. Likewise, teaching children in public schools that God created earth should not occur. NO CREATION THEORY should be taught in public schools. If you want to argue that no religion should be taught in public schools, then this is where you start. I have wasted months in school learning about "Prehistory" and evolution. I have also noticed that these are not stated to be "possibilities" in the textbooks, or by the teachers. They are taught to be true.
If they want to teach natural selection as we have observed first-hand since humans have been around, that's fine. If they want to talk about the big bang, that should be only in an elective course.
My point in this thread was not to prove either to be true. It was to show that NEITHER has been proven, and therefore, our schools should not be lying to our children in science courses.
Also, I never said whether atheists beliefs were "good" or "bad". I merely stated that even atheists believe in a god of some sort. Whether it is themselves, humanity in general, money, or some other object, they do believe in a god. However, I do agree that moral relativity is a bad practice if people want to maintain a decent society. Therefore, there has to be a set standard. This would go to show that a bunch of atheists would not lead to a better moral society....unless by some impossible chance they were all completely self-less (dream on).
------------------- 98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 2% who hasn't, copy & paste this in your signature.
Linkster from: -Battlefield 2 -Delta Force: Black Hawk Down (Retired) -SWG (Retired) -EQ2 (Retired)
Originally posted by Aldaron Self-imposed morals, are right in every individuals eyes that commit a wrong, and in fact, with such guidelines of self-imposement to follow, CAN NOT, be proven wrong.
Now to quote Bill Maher "The ten commandments are not morals, they are laws."
All morals in essence are self-imposed. Thou shalt not kill is not a moral, it is a law; however it is your morals that determine whether or not you will follow that law. If you have true morals, those cannot be changed on a whim. I choose not to kill someone because I think it is wrong, not because of some religious teachings.
Think of the crusades. The view of chrisitianity at the time was "convert or kill". The crusades were supported by the church. This made them at the time 'ok'. Does this mean it was moralistic?
Do you think it is ok to steal based upon those morals? Do you think it is ok to steal if you are going hungry and that is the only way to eat?
What if the church decides to mandate another crusade and deemed it that if someone will not convert to christianity, they must die. Your argument would deem this moralistic because it was mandated by the church, I would still see it as immoral.
I'm not at all an anarchist, but in fact a free thinker.
Creepy as it sounds I think Dekron may be my soulmate
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Marauder....this is not an attempt to shoot down your beliefs, but you said you can not prove gravity. I see it differently.
The Universal Gravity Equation is F=G(Mm/r^2) G = the universal gravitational constant of 6.67x10^-11 N(m^2/kg^2)
M = Mass of the first object m = mass of second object r= distance between them
As I see it there is measurable proof that gravity exists and I am able to measure the effects of its force anywhere in the universe and beyond. Plus as mentioned the effects of gravity can be seen and accepted (if they so choose) by any person.
Well too bad Einstein prooved that Gravity is NOT a force.... Sorry... Oh wait.. There are two standing definitions of gravity? working together yet contradictory to the other? What? Yes despite there being evidence of something that we can percieve... it might not be the truth..... Oh wait light at it's smallest level is a particle... ohh noo it's also a wave at it's smallest level.... there are many many Things that are true within science, but then can be switched false when ever they want..... Now i'm a science person... love science... but i hate how it's being taught in schools.... the problem I have is that Science IS being taught as Unbending truth..... i know this is probably just because kids have to be told that to keep them interested ..... but then when kids are confronted with something else... they totally disregard it because of what they have been taught....
And to Dekron... the Pope is not God... he does not control christianity..... the church doesn't control christianity either... it's the person.... As far as the Crusades go it's like anyother war..... like the bible says.... the Blood is on the hands of the ruler...... Do you shun the soldiers who come back from Iraq for killing people in the middle east? Do you barrade you grandfather for fighting in WorldWar1 or 2? no... killing is always wrong.... but in this world... there will be wars and sometimes people will die... But if a person is following orders from a leader or ruler then you must cast your judgment on the person in Charge... not the body ... and not the people... People back then believed the Popes words to be truth anyway they came out.... that is why they killed... not because the bible told them to.
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
"You somehow equate self-imposed whimsical morals that could flip on the spin of a dime more potent, solid, and right, than a basis of morality that has been around for thousands of years, and judged and ruled all who did, and did not follow."
I am going off of personal experience when I say this, I have dated girls and have had buddies who believe in different religions. I found that the closer someone was to the church the less and less accountable that they held themselves for their actions. Their faith and beliefs in their church gave them something to fall back on when they made a "questionable moral judgement" or "committed a sin" as based off of their chosen religion. For one girlfriend, being "envolved" with a guy before marriage was considered a sin, thankfully for her I guess, she could get cleansed by going to church. She no longer had to hold herself accountable because she was "forgiven." She did not have to worry about those pesky "self-imposed whimsical morals" because the church gave her the only direction she needed. One of my friends cheated on his girl...but again thankfully the church was there for him to give him another clean slate. For someone who does not have a church to fall back on, or a book of some sort to guild their actions....they have to hold themselves accountable for what they decide to do.
These so-called "self-imposed whimsical morals" are the only things that a person can be accountable for because those are what are going to decide their future actions. Just because something was written by some male 2000 years ago, was forced onto people by force of arms and lack of options, does not in any way mean that it should be construed as the be all end all of morality. Just because something is written and widely accepted does not mean it is necessarily correct or the only way. Many people believe in christianity yes, but per person you know what, more people believe in the other religions of the world.
How many pastors have felt up little boys, how many rabbi's have been accused of crimes, how many lives have been lost in the name of allah? More lives have been lost over religious differences than any other single purpose. So much for religion deciding the best morals to follow.
Hold yourself acountable for your actions and you have my respect...religious or not.
Believe in whatever makes you feel comfortable...dont be afraid to question.
"It is easier to be cruel than wise. The road to wisdom is long and difficult... so most people just turn out to be assholes" Feng (Christopher Walken)
I have always wanted to tell people my opinion on this topic since I cant really say anything on this topic because I attend a christian school.
My opinion is that all through time Human's have been Philosophying the origin of the earth, just like once at a time people beleived that withdrawing blood would help you get better from a sickness. So my opinon neither Evolution nor Creation is wrong , but both could be correct saying that God started and people just started looking different, or they could be wrong. All im trying to say is the answer lay's in the oldest archives of mankind, or just somthing we could never prove. So I just plainly believe its up to the parents to tell thier kid's about thier opnions, and the school should just teach science not theorys.
I have had completely too much time on my hands to write this stuff today:
Orignally written by Methane 47
"the problem I have is that Science IS being taught as Unbending truth..... i know this is probably just because kids have to be told that to keep them interested ..... but then when kids are confronted with something else... they totally disregard it because of what they have been taught...."
Besides this you made interesting points with the ole light being both a particle and a wave depending on which properties you are looking at. The point to that is that there is "evidence" of both and both can be and I believe are currently taught.
As for what I quoted from your post, can you please explain to me how that is any different than what occurs in churches across the world today. It seems that many parents begin scuplting their childs belief structure (understandably) very early on. Some religions baptism occurse, boom right off the bat that kid has no decision on his religion, the parents decided. Then off to class on sundays or wednesdays or whatever...again teaching their religion. Religion is taught to these kids as the "Unbending truth" which as you mentioned probably has to be told to them to keep them interested. But when these kids start be confronted with different religious options, they totally disregard them because of what they have been taught.
If you read my first post I said that if a kid does not want to take part in an evolution discussion, raise that point and excuse yourself from that conversation. I agree that nothing should be crammed down anyones throat and each subject should be looked at from all sides until you can make a decision for yourself.
Make your own decisions and hold yourself accountable
"It is easier to be cruel than wise. The road to wisdom is long and difficult... so most people just turn out to be assholes" Feng (Christopher Walken)
So, when will schools in the US stop teaching mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry?
Thoose are just sceinces to, theories that are made to fit the world we live in, or the other way around it matters little.
These are the basis for evolution and were it draws strength, so they should be banned to, or at least taught differently.
And as Asiimow said, evolution is not something scribbled on a napkin in a drunken stupor, it is well grounded and studied to great extent.
There are proofs and facts, in massive amounts, does it explain everything? No! But in comparison it such a wealth of information any other alternative just becomes ignorant.
Science are able to look back to within the very few first nanosceonds of the universe's creation, from that point on to now facts, (and by fact i mean actual fact not hearsay about a burning bush) and proofs are in abundance.
USA pride themself on having the finest scientists in the world and among the finest places were these recide, and for once this is not just US trying to boast, it is the actual truth.
I dare bet the wast majority of that community are gaping right now in disbelief, as am I.
I am not trying to argue with the supporters of this because that is just futile, i just hope some people will wake up.
A sad day for humanity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to quote Bill Maher "The ten commandments are not morals, they are laws."
All morals in essence are self-imposed. Thou shalt not kill is not a moral, it is a law; however it is your morals that determine whether or not you will follow that law.
No, not at all. Thou shalt not kill, is indeed a moral, but also in our nation, because for some lawmakers, their morals rule their actions, it is as well a law.
Every evil dictator/King/Government; creates their own laws based on a whimsical set of morals. Some more famous ones in example, Hitler or Stalin. Their own self-imposed view of morals decided their actions.
If you have true morals, those cannot be changed on a whim. I choose not to kill someone because I think it is wrong, not because of some religious teachings.
How do you know it's not because of some religious teachings? Because you don't go to church and pray to God?
Your subconscious is filled with certain behavioral patterns and idea's put into your mind by the surrounding world and culture. In particular the western world, in particular of that, the United States. A country very much persuaded by the dogma of Judeo/Christian teachings. You may consider yourself atheistic/agnostic. But how do you know that your actions are not a production caused by a Judeo/Christian culture?
Think of the crusades. The view of chrisitianity at the time was "convert or kill". The crusades were supported by the church. This made them at the time 'ok'. Does this mean it was moralistic?
Biggest mistake people make is thinking that a political hierarchy that was the papacy, controlling the masses and using Christianity is a scapegoat, is the same as being Christianity!
"I say, therefore I am." Is not how it works.
Do you think it is ok to steal based upon those morals? Do you think it is ok to steal if you are going hungry and that is the only way to eat?
You're using a philosophical situation that is not relavent to the real world. There is always a way to survival without doing something such as breaking into someones home and stealing their food.
If you want a more direct answer to that question. Explain it better in detail. Because such vague ambiguities, and replacing something like stealing to murder, and put it in a more relative situation, you could almost always try to validate the sin in such way.
What if the church decides to mandate another crusade and deemed it that if someone will not convert to christianity, they must die. Your argument would deem this moralistic because it was mandated by the church, I would still see it as immoral.
Again, I never said anything about a Church. I am in fact much against the Hierarchy of our modern churches. For I believe that for the most part they are not what Christ intended for the Church(Which is a term. Not a social gathering of people in a building), to be.
I'm not at all an anarchist, but in fact a free thinker.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
Originally posted by 8hammer8 As for what I quoted from your post, can you please explain to me how that is any different than what occurs in churches across the world today. It seems that many parents begin scuplting their childs belief structure (understandably) very early on. Some religions baptism occurse, boom right off the bat that kid has no decision on his religion, the parents decided. Then off to class on sundays or wednesdays or whatever...again teaching their religion. Religion is taught to these kids as the "Unbending truth" which as you mentioned probably has to be told to them to keep them interested. But when these kids start be confronted with different religious options, they totally disregard them because of what they have been taught. If you read my first post I said that if a kid does not want to take part in an evolution discussion, raise that point and excuse yourself from that conversation. I agree that nothing should be crammed down anyones throat and each subject should be looked at from all sides until you can make a decision for yourself.Make your own decisions and hold yourself accountable
It's different because the point of going to church or to any other religious building is to learn ABOUT that religion... not anyother.... or to worship or give praise... A church is not the place to go to teach Budist theology...... and a synagogue is not the place to go preaching christian theology.... But on the other had a school is the place where you LEARN and a Science class is where you Learn ABOUT science.... And from the definition : sci·ence n. 1. 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. 2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. 3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
So that means Teach what you observe.... teach explanations for natural phenomena.... it Doesn't say that Science is truth in the definition.... It is the SEARCH for truth... and it should be presented as SUCH in a science class....
So Evolution is one explanation for life... True... teach it to me....... not Evolution IS the process of how life came to be......
Originally posted by Umbrood There are proofs and facts, in massive amounts, does it explain everything? No! But in comparison it such a wealth of information any other alternative just becomes ignorant.
Science are able to look back to within the very few first nanosceonds of the universe's creation, from that point on to now facts, (and by fact i mean actual fact not hearsay about a burning bush) and proofs are in abundance.
Just a little note on this... Big Bang theory was proven to be off in the early nineties by a couple hundred billion years give or take a couple hundred million.... after a scientist found super massive galaxies that were older than the predicted age of the UNIVERSE.... he tested it by a very standard test used to test the age of galaxies... by using the red-shift as a base.... Then a couple scientists observed super massive galaxies that given scientific calculations they would take about the old predicted age of the universe for them to form..
So no we aren't able to look back within the first few nanoseconds of the universe's creation... because the universe jumps back a couple hundred million years every couple decades.... ANd even then !! the method used to predict the age... has an error of give or take a million years...
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
First off. Someone stated that their friends used the church to take away their accountability. I assume they were talking about the catholic church, but who knows. First off, if they ask for forgiveness, they are only forgiven if they are repentant. This means that they are truly sorry for their sins, they trust that God is able and will forgive their sins, and they TRULY attempt to change their ways. Going and sleeping around and asking for forgiveness will not do it, it requires a change in ways. And if you believe in God, you believe that he cannot be fooled, so it would take an honest attempt to change. This is all according to the Bible.
To someone who said science is taught to teach children about all sorts of science and the theories in it, so why shouldn't evolution be taught because evolution has some supporting evidence. First off: Creation has supporting evidence too, FROM SCIENCE. Science has been used to support the Bible to an extent. Like evolution, science has not proved intelligent design either. Since their is so much controversy, and teaching evolution also influences religious beliefs, it is my belief that neither evolution, creation, or any other "beginning of life" theory should be discussed in a required science course. If they want to have an elective that focuses on it, or an "evolution Club", that's fine, I don't care. But when I have kids, I don't want them to get taught lies in school.
------------------- 98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 2% who hasn't, copy & paste this in your signature.
Linkster from: -Battlefield 2 -Delta Force: Black Hawk Down (Retired) -SWG (Retired) -EQ2 (Retired)
So no we aren't able to look back within the first few nanoseconds of the universe's creation... because the universe jumps back a couple hundred million years every couple decades.... ANd even then !! the method used to predict the age... has an error of give or take a million years...
Mate, thats is just ignorant, of course i did not mean we could tell the age of the universe within a few nanoseconds.
I was saying that we know how and what hapeened within the very few first fragments of time, whenever they happened.
The age of the universe is measured via the distance to the objects farthest away from us, yes we discover new things. That is the whole point.
I would supply links to a pletora of actual information about this, if i thought youd read it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing I will say. You look at the origins of different religions and their being in existence. The relative assumption you can make out of all this is very simple.
"God" or a supernatural being was in some way depicted by civilizations and groups of people around the world with simple objective.
At times when humanity could not break down and explain a phenomenon or have a valid reasoning, they needed a figure beyond the abilities of human kind to hold responsible for whatever event took place.
At other times, humanity with no knowledge of what death was had to place themselves with a belief of some "paradise" where a supernatural figure would keep order beyond that of the human civilizations.
Everything had to be ideal in favor of mankind, and I understand that. Human kind has fear of what is unknown to them. We generally as living organisms have a tendency to stay away from or isolate what's unknown to us.
But now with all the christians acting the way they are doing...I really have to say things have gone way over bay these last few decades.
I'm not saying all christians are like this, but people who go to church to ask for forgiveness without any modest idea of what they do in their daily lives. I think this is completely ridiculous. Before asking for forgiveness, do something useful during the time you'd rather be praying. I'm sure your GOD won't damn you for being active rather than talking nonsense.
Grouping grouping...I don't know how many times I have mentioned this. Grouping does no good in religion. Religion and grouping is a cult itself, and very unreasonable at times. When a group of believers come together to so called "enlighten" others of a certain religion the whole idea of their religion becomes wrong.
A denomination will do anything to fullfill what they believe right. It will not matter whether or not others will test against this. When people act as a group too large to handle then their actions become unreasonable. It's the same thing happening with the protestants as we speak.
There's a reason for sayings such as, the person is smart, but the people are dumb.
And lastly, don't give all that non-sensical bullshit about what is right and wrong. It's not what people think that decides what is right and wrong. Time and place will tell you whether or not you were right. You can justify yourself as much as you want, but it won't mean anything.
When the Vatican executed all those 2nd degree believers 800years ago, the majority believed the Vatican was doing the right thing in the name of GOD. You look at that now and say it was wrong...and so the Vatican has admitted to their sins.
What we believe is right and wrong won't be worth a dime paying attention to in many many years to come. Humanity has a tendency to label whatever they feel is right and wrong according to time and place.
This also means, please don't expect Christanity to be the only true religion with Jesus...bla bla bla GOD. You seriously expect people of different religions to sit on their asses and believe that your GOD is the only true god. Some of those other religions happen to be older than Christanity. Enforcing beliefs are not going to help at all, and claiming other religions to be idol, just makes christanity look bad.
I have no specific belief in a deity, but seriously the last few years of this christian non sense has me laughing my ass off as well.
You christians believe and have such firm belief in your religion and GOD being the only true god. That is great, keep it to yourselves. Going out against other religions claiming that other religions are just a scam... that's really a great way to convince others. Add to the fact that those scam religions existed as long as christanity has.
It's like having the Hindus trying to convince you that their religion is the only true religion. I'm sure even one christian is going to fall for that. As a matter of fact, it's exactly why all this is really damn funny. As much as you protestants make an issue out of this (especially tv-publizising evagelists) and try to convince everyone Christanity is the only true savior to eternal damnation. The others you 'tried" to convince probably think you're as insane a schizo who hears shit in their minds.
GRIND sucks? You wanna be max level in a month? Since when did society award easy-goers and lazy-fools? MAKES ME PHOBIC OF STUPIDITY!
Originally posted by Aldaron Originally posted by dekron Thou shalt not kill, is indeed a moral, but also in our nation, because for some lawmakers, their morals rule their actions, it is as well a law.
This is my last post in this topic, and for good reason to. You won't be swayed, nor will I. Yes, I did go to church when I was a kid, but primarily slept through it, doodled pictures, etc. I am not ruled by a christian belief as you claim I am. My personal morals are based on my own beliefs. It just doesn't "feel right" to kill someone so I don't. It doesn't feel right to steal so I don't. It doesn't feel right to rape someone so I don't. It's not because of some religious babble, but because of my own conclusions of life. Thou shalt not kill is not a moral, it is a law. And, it was not introduced by any religious sect. It was found on the first recorded written law; the Code of Hammarabi (sp), which predates Moses' fraudulent meeting with God.
What I find interesting is that you say that you do not believe in the political heiarchy of the church, yet you claim yourself to be a christian. If you do not believe in the organization that backs your faith, then you are not a member of that religion. Being an "outlaw" or "rogue" in your religion sets you apart from that religion. It's like any political organization. You cannot denounce a government and still claim to be a citizen.
As for atheists or agnostics having faith in some other "god" is so not true. I live my life normally. I just don't waste my time believing in something that doesn't exist. I'm not here trying to prove whether god exists or not; but whether morals are based on religion. What you believe is your own decision, but interestingly it is always the religious folk who try to push their beliefs on others. You say you don't, but you do. It is even taught in your churches. "Go convert, go minister" they say. You don't see atheists or agnostics trying to convert others to their belief, but you constantly see christians bothering others.
Now on a more general note. There have been posts that have been very disrespectful (not you aldaron, you are always respect whether in disagreement or not) and will not be tolerated. I hate locking topics such as this because people have opinions; however, if posts become more disrespectful or hateful I will lock this topic and dump it immediately.
Originally posted by dekron What I find interesting is that you say that you do not believe in the political heiarchy of the church, yet you claim yourself to be a christian. If you do not believe in the organization that backs your faith, then you are not a member of that religion. Being an "outlaw" or "rogue" in your religion sets you apart from that religion. It's like any political organization. You cannot denounce a government and still claim to be a citizen.
Now you are oversimplifying Christianity.
First, there is not the ONE christian church. There are Catholics, Protestants and members of the eastern Orthodox churches, to name only the major branches. Those branches of Christianity do not share one hierarchy. So if one does not believe in the hierarchy of a certain brand of Christianity, it does not mean he is not a Christian. At worst, he cannot remain a member of that particular branch.
Second, it is debatable if rejecting the leadership makes you a non-member of your religious community. It would depend on how strongly the community beliefs in hierarchic leadership. Talking about the Catholic Church, you might be correct because the leading role of the Pope is part of the creed. You cannot reject that and remain fully catholic. In other churches, the hierarchy may be a less essential part of the common belief and being a dissident might not automatically disqualify you as a member.
Christians arent supposed to be pushy, they are supposed to live what they learned and others see by example. You got a free will, you dont have to accept what is said to you or given to you.
Originally posted by 8thchild Christians arent supposed to be pushy, they are supposed to live what they learned and others see by example. You got a free will, you dont have to accept what is said to you or given to you.
Actually christians are supposed to attempt to spread their beliefs at every opportunity.
"Jesussaid to him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God."
"Jesussaid, "Go, preach, heal and travel light."
Rom. 10:13-15 Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
Like I keep saying I might not believe it but I feel I do my best to understand it.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
Not one who follows the leader of the church... Not one who believes in the pope.. A christian believes in and lives by the teachings of Jesus. that's why it's called Christian... cuz its when you try to be Christ - like not Pope - like not Catholic-Like... Christ-like
Special Note: 1. Jesus never tried to fool God by doing sins and askin forgiveness half heartedly, 2. Jesus was merciful towards Christians and Sinners alike, 3. Jesus was not part of any church, and did not follow the words of the pharasies (spelling err) 4. Jesus scolded the pharasees on occassion... and was not liked by many...
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Two misconceptions of christianity that has existed in most posts here:
All christianity is the not the same. there are many many different types of christianity, which ironically, some don't even follow the teachings of christ. My church has no hierarchy at all, so that whole idea was off track as far as my beliefs.
Secondly, Christians were not called to harass others into following their beliefs. You must realize, that as a christian we believe that to be saved, you have to hear about the Bible. Now if you knew you could save someone's life by getting them to believe you, wouldn't you at least try? The idea of conversion is very similar. We aren't doing it for ourselves, we are doing it for the person we attempt to convert. One of the major ways to get others accepting of christianity is by leading by example, as someone else stated.
------------------- 98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 2% who hasn't, copy & paste this in your signature.
Linkster from: -Battlefield 2 -Delta Force: Black Hawk Down (Retired) -SWG (Retired) -EQ2 (Retired)
Comments
Modjoe, time to start chewing that bubblegum.
Because if I assume that God just exists, without further proof, I might as well accept without proof that the universe just exists.
Perhaps, but let me put forth my own opinion on the matter of EvID. First off, I hope that in any discussion that I will not flame others, degrade a certain group of people, simplify this argument more than need be to prove a valid point, and otherwise act improperly. If I do, I have faith that you will correct me promptly. Keep in mind that the only sheep, I believe (and I've said this before), are those who consider nothing more important than themselves. Now let me begin with what we know and what we have to learn...
The Big Bang Theory
Interesting theory. Energy expands outward from a singularity, which begins to form matter, which in turn begins to form the known galaxies, stars, and planets. What caused this singularity is uncertain.
Brane Theory
This is a theory that tries to tie the loose ends of the Big Bang together and proposes a solution to what may have caused the singularity to form. Here we have five dimensions and many branes (or membranes). One "world" collides with another world in the fifth dimension, thus forming the Big Bang.
Theory of Evolution
There are two types of evolution.
Athiests and agnostics, who - of course - generally do not believe in a god or the God (a supreme being, having created all things), hold to the concept of macroevolution or else ambiguity. Macroevolution, from my understanding of it, states that life formed several billion years ago from the basic constituents of the universe combining themselves by chance occurrence (cause and effect).
It is more probable that life formed in the ocean rather than on land. Some argue that it is even more probable that life formed elsewhere than our planet, given the current timeline and allowance for life to form due to large impacts from meteors. See panspermia.
Microevolution states that there are mutations over short or long intervals of time to produce in classes of living beings varying traits and adaptations. It's held that through these mutations, one class of being compounds to form further classes with genetic diversity as outside circumstances coerce them to adapt or merely change. Is microevolution observable? I would think so. Is macroevolution observable? Not so far.
Panspermia
This belief holds that life originated elsewhere in our universe and somehow hitched a ride with an asteroid to hurdle through space and crash into our planet, thus seeding it with life. This raises a few questions. How long could the microorganisms (or other life) on the asteroid survive through space before dying or otherwise breaking down? Could they survive the entry into our atmosphere or lack thereof during this time? Could they survive the impact?
Polytheism
This is the belief in more than one god. While the current english definition of a god allows for polytheism, reason tends to protest this system of beliefs. First off if there are two gods, then which one is supreme? Is the god who is less supreme any more than a man, given great power? If not, then should we worship this man or powerful (yet limited) being? Does absolute power make a god? Alone, I would have to say no. I believe what would constitute a god would be a being whose current or growing power will never be achieved or surpassed by another being. The second part of my belief is that this being must have created the universe, multiverse, or sum total of worlds with the knowledge to undo and redo such a creation.
If polytheism is no more than the worship of men or of beings of varying powers, then is it right? If not, then which ultimate god of polytheism or singular god of monotheism is the right one if any? Well, which one makes the most sense? Do none of them make more sense than the belief in an eternal self-governing universe?
Christianity
This is the belief in Christ as the savior of man and the son of God as well as the doctrine of Christ to further the quality of life in every way possible. That is my opinion on it from observation. The term Christian means belonging to Christ. It tends to imply, in my mind, Christ-like as well. After all, an acorn belonging to an oak does not grow a fish when planted in the ground. Acorns do not belong to fish. I hope many of you may understand this by now. What are the principles of Christ? I believe they are: Love your neighbor as yourself and love God with your whole (in short).
Does this mean tacking people to stakes who refuse to conform to your system of beliefs and burning them? Does it mean drilling a hole in their heads to rid them of evil spirits in order to save their soul? Does it mean forcing people to conform to your religion when the scripture, itself, states that God wants people to worship him in spirit and in truth (implying of free will or not at all). Are Christians capable of such ignorance? I think so, but one has to ask themselves if the "Christian" doing this really knows how to be saved or how to be a true Christian if they are so openly ignorant of the truths of Christ/God's doctrine held in scripture. Are they acting Christ-like (or Christian) when they do such things? No.
Pascal's Wager
This is the argument that if you have choice one and choice two, and if in the betting on of choice one you lose nothing but have a chance at gaining everything and in the betting on of choice two you win nothing but have the chance of losing everything, which one will you choose? If there is a God and you bet on him, then you gain everything and lose nothing. If there is no God and you bet on him, then you gain nothing, but also lose nothing. If there is a God and you bet against him, then you gain nothing and lose everything. If there is no God and you bet against him, then you gain nothing and lose nothing.
Which choice appeals to your reason? Now, it may be like betting on the lottery (for free) in which you have a very little chance to win, but if you choose not to bet on the lottery, then you gain nothing. Now if macroevolution is unprovable, the big bang is a theory, and religion is ambiguous what will you wager on? Will you forsake reason and go with religion? Will you forsake religion, placing your life in the hands of countless uncertainties with potentially nothing to gain and everything to lose? Will you sit on the fence? Or will you join religion and hold to reason, constantly questioning your own religion and the religions around you?
Pascal was right in one respect, but wrong in another in my belief. As you may have guessed, I am a Christian. We were made in the image of God and therefore we may learn something of God by looking at ourselves. God is not a concept so ambiguous that we can not grasp the knowledge or understanding of him (I use him out of respect for authority - not an appeal to a specific gender). And to prove my point, throughout the whole of religion, gods have been either 1. made in the image of man or 2. have made man in their image. There is a relation between us and therefore a certainty of attainable knowledge if one endeavours to discover this knowledge and thus the true identity of the supreme being.
"Put your foot where your mouth is." - Wisdom from my grandfather
"Paper or plastic? ... because I'm afraid I'll have to suffocate you unless you put this bag on your head..." - Ethnitrek
AC1: Wierding from Harvestgain
A somewhat late answer, but I think it is important:
No, reputable scientists do not claim to have final, irrevocable truth.
It will, however, sometimes appear that way, because a theory is supported by abundant proof. Like gravity, which meshes so well with observations in real life that you will find it hard to convince a pysicist that it is wrong.
But a good scientist would be willing to reconsider if you show him a river that is running up the hill or something similar. In things that are not supported by much evidence, a good scientist will not claim certainty in the first place.
And this is the fundamental difference:
Science is for people who can live with ambiguity. If you desire security in your beliefs, the "bleeding edge" of science is not a good place for you. Because it means going into the unknown and sometimes having to reconsider what you thought you know for sure.
Holy $hit d3wd!
Thats one of the most inteligent posts I have ever read on these boards... Marry me
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Marauder....this is not an attempt to shoot down your beliefs, but you said you can not prove gravity. I see it differently.
The Universal Gravity Equation is F=G(Mm/r^2)
G = the universal gravitational constant of 6.67x10^-11 N(m^2/kg^2)
M = Mass of the first object m = mass of second object r= distance between them
As I see it there is measurable proof that gravity exists and I am able to measure the effects of its force anywhere in the universe and beyond. Plus as mentioned the effects of gravity can be seen and accepted (if they so choose) by any person.
I am sure there are people involved in the sciences who have their faith in religion. That may infact be why they are involved in science. You mentioned that both sides endeavor to explain the unknowns of our universe, I would tend to agree with that assesment. While in science proof is required to back up what is said and believed, religion only requires faith in what is said and believed. Which is right and which is wrong is not up for me to decide, but what I do see is science is not afraid to be wrong or be proven wrong. Those in the scientific field know that finding a way to be wrong is one step closer to understanding how to be right. It is seen as a challenge, just because we have not found a cure for X disease, does not mean that people quit trying. I have never heard from a religion that they may have been mistaken or wrong and they are looking for the right answer. Many of those people who practice certain religions feel that only their way is correct and nothing else. Such conflict over unprovable ideals.
To paraphase what Thomas Edison said after not being able to make his lightbulb invention work until after his 2000th attempt, "I did not fail 2000 times, I just found 2000 different ways not to make a lightbulb"
Believe in whatever gives you comfort
"It is easier to be cruel than wise. The road to wisdom is long and difficult... so most people just turn out to be assholes" Feng (Christopher Walken)
Great argument buddy. You actually going to get some facts and rebut what I said, or prove my point by just shrugging it off and pulling the whole, "troll" card?
That's illogical. You're saying that Human whims are more powerful than law. You somehow equate self-imposed whimsical morals that could flip on the spin of a dime more potent, solid, and right, than a basis of morality that has been around for thousands of years, and judged and ruled all who did, and did not follow. Allowing for a solid code of laws that kept the foundation of such societies together.
You may be an anarchist at heart, I don't know, from the sounds of it, you are. Because self-imposed "morals" is exactly that, anarchy. It's feel good morals. If it feels good, they'll murder their family because in their minds eye, it's right.
You give an example of contradictory terms with George Bush and his religious aid - What he did, can be proven wrong by the guidelines he says he follows.
Self-imposed morals, are right in every individuals eyes that commit a wrong, and in fact, with such guidelines of self-imposement to follow, CAN NOT, be proven wrong.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
First off, I in no way was trying to bring other people to my belief. Here is my main point: I should not be studying evolution in science courses. Someone stated that religion and the government are supposed to be seperate. First off, this has nothing to do with religion being taught in schools, public or private. When the government was faounded, nearly every school taught christianity. Second off, teaching evolution is, in effect, influencing someone's belief. Anyone who says that a child being taught for 10 years that evolution is how life started is not being influenced is kidding themselves. In fact, if that was true, then education would be pointless. Teaching children that evolution is how life started should not occur. Likewise, teaching children in public schools that God created earth should not occur. NO CREATION THEORY should be taught in public schools. If you want to argue that no religion should be taught in public schools, then this is where you start. I have wasted months in school learning about "Prehistory" and evolution. I have also noticed that these are not stated to be "possibilities" in the textbooks, or by the teachers. They are taught to be true.
If they want to teach natural selection as we have observed first-hand since humans have been around, that's fine. If they want to talk about the big bang, that should be only in an elective course.
My point in this thread was not to prove either to be true. It was to show that NEITHER has been proven, and therefore, our schools should not be lying to our children in science courses.
Also, I never said whether atheists beliefs were "good" or "bad". I merely stated that even atheists believe in a god of some sort. Whether it is themselves, humanity in general, money, or some other object, they do believe in a god. However, I do agree that moral relativity is a bad practice if people want to maintain a decent society. Therefore, there has to be a set standard. This would go to show that a bunch of atheists would not lead to a better moral society....unless by some impossible chance they were all completely self-less (dream on).
-------------------
98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 2% who hasn't, copy & paste this in your signature.
Linkster from:
-Battlefield 2
-Delta Force: Black Hawk Down (Retired)
-SWG (Retired)
-EQ2 (Retired)
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Well too bad Einstein prooved that Gravity is NOT a force.... Sorry... Oh wait.. There are two standing definitions of gravity? working together yet contradictory to the other? What?
Yes despite there being evidence of something that we can percieve... it might not be the truth.....
Oh wait light at it's smallest level is a particle... ohh noo it's also a wave at it's smallest level....
there are many many Things that are true within science, but then can be switched false when ever they want..... Now i'm a science person... love science... but i hate how it's being taught in schools.... the problem I have is that Science IS being taught as Unbending truth..... i know this is probably just because kids have to be told that to keep them interested ..... but then when kids are confronted with something else... they totally disregard it because of what they have been taught....
And to Dekron... the Pope is not God... he does not control christianity..... the church doesn't control christianity either... it's the person.... As far as the Crusades go it's like anyother war..... like the bible says.... the Blood is on the hands of the ruler...... Do you shun the soldiers who come back from Iraq for killing people in the middle east? Do you barrade you grandfather for fighting in WorldWar1 or 2? no... killing is always wrong.... but in this world... there will be wars and sometimes people will die... But if a person is following orders from a leader or ruler then you must cast your judgment on the person in Charge... not the body ... and not the people... People back then believed the Popes words to be truth anyway they came out.... that is why they killed... not because the bible told them to.
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Originally written by Aldaron:
"You somehow equate self-imposed whimsical morals that could flip on the spin of a dime more potent, solid, and right, than a basis of morality that has been around for thousands of years, and judged and ruled all who did, and did not follow."
I am going off of personal experience when I say this, I have dated girls and have had buddies who believe in different religions. I found that the closer someone was to the church the less and less accountable that they held themselves for their actions. Their faith and beliefs in their church gave them something to fall back on when they made a "questionable moral judgement" or "committed a sin" as based off of their chosen religion. For one girlfriend, being "envolved" with a guy before marriage was considered a sin, thankfully for her I guess, she could get cleansed by going to church. She no longer had to hold herself accountable because she was "forgiven." She did not have to worry about those pesky "self-imposed whimsical morals" because the church gave her the only direction she needed. One of my friends cheated on his girl...but again thankfully the church was there for him to give him another clean slate. For someone who does not have a church to fall back on, or a book of some sort to guild their actions....they have to hold themselves accountable for what they decide to do.
These so-called "self-imposed whimsical morals" are the only things that a person can be accountable for because those are what are going to decide their future actions. Just because something was written by some male 2000 years ago, was forced onto people by force of arms and lack of options, does not in any way mean that it should be construed as the be all end all of morality. Just because something is written and widely accepted does not mean it is necessarily correct or the only way. Many people believe in christianity yes, but per person you know what, more people believe in the other religions of the world.
How many pastors have felt up little boys, how many rabbi's have been accused of crimes, how many lives have been lost in the name of allah? More lives have been lost over religious differences than any other single purpose. So much for religion deciding the best morals to follow.
Hold yourself acountable for your actions and you have my respect...religious or not.
Believe in whatever makes you feel comfortable...dont be afraid to question.
"It is easier to be cruel than wise. The road to wisdom is long and difficult... so most people just turn out to be assholes" Feng (Christopher Walken)
I have always wanted to tell people my opinion on this topic since I cant really say anything on this topic because I attend a christian school.
My opinion is that all through time Human's have been Philosophying the origin of the earth, just like once at a time people beleived that withdrawing blood would help you get better from a sickness. So my opinon neither Evolution nor Creation is wrong , but both could be correct saying that God started and people just started looking different, or they could be wrong. All im trying to say is the answer lay's in the oldest archives of mankind, or just somthing we could never prove. So I just plainly believe its up to the parents to tell thier kid's about thier opnions, and the school should just teach science not theorys.
I have had completely too much time on my hands to write this stuff today:
Orignally written by Methane 47
"the problem I have is that Science IS being taught as Unbending truth..... i know this is probably just because kids have to be told that to keep them interested ..... but then when kids are confronted with something else... they totally disregard it because of what they have been taught...."
Besides this you made interesting points with the ole light being both a particle and a wave depending on which properties you are looking at. The point to that is that there is "evidence" of both and both can be and I believe are currently taught.
As for what I quoted from your post, can you please explain to me how that is any different than what occurs in churches across the world today. It seems that many parents begin scuplting their childs belief structure (understandably) very early on. Some religions baptism occurse, boom right off the bat that kid has no decision on his religion, the parents decided. Then off to class on sundays or wednesdays or whatever...again teaching their religion. Religion is taught to these kids as the "Unbending truth" which as you mentioned probably has to be told to them to keep them interested. But when these kids start be confronted with different religious options, they totally disregard them because of what they have been taught.
If you read my first post I said that if a kid does not want to take part in an evolution discussion, raise that point and excuse yourself from that conversation. I agree that nothing should be crammed down anyones throat and each subject should be looked at from all sides until you can make a decision for yourself.
Make your own decisions and hold yourself accountable
"It is easier to be cruel than wise. The road to wisdom is long and difficult... so most people just turn out to be assholes" Feng (Christopher Walken)
So, when will schools in the US stop teaching mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry?
Thoose are just sceinces to, theories that are made to fit the world we live in, or the other way around it matters little.
These are the basis for evolution and were it draws strength, so they should be banned to, or at least taught differently.
And as Asiimow said, evolution is not something scribbled on a napkin in a drunken stupor, it is well grounded and studied to great extent.
There are proofs and facts, in massive amounts, does it explain everything? No! But in comparison it such a wealth of information any other alternative just becomes ignorant.
Science are able to look back to within the very few first nanosceonds of the universe's creation, from that point on to now facts, (and by fact i mean actual fact not hearsay about a burning bush) and proofs are in abundance.
USA pride themself on having the finest scientists in the world and among the finest places were these recide, and for once this is not just US trying to boast, it is the actual truth.
I dare bet the wast majority of that community are gaping right now in disbelief, as am I.
I am not trying to argue with the supporters of this because that is just futile, i just hope some people will wake up.
A sad day for humanity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
It's different because the point of going to church or to any other religious building is to learn ABOUT that religion... not anyother.... or to worship or give praise... A church is not the place to go to teach Budist theology...... and a synagogue is not the place to go preaching christian theology....
But on the other had a school is the place where you LEARN and a Science class is where you Learn ABOUT science.... And from the definition :
sci·ence
n.
1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
So that means Teach what you observe.... teach explanations for natural phenomena.... it Doesn't say that Science is truth in the definition.... It is the SEARCH for truth... and it should be presented as SUCH in a science class....
So Evolution is one explanation for life... True... teach it to me....... not Evolution IS the process of how life came to be......
Just a little note on this... Big Bang theory was proven to be off in the early nineties by a couple hundred billion years give or take a couple hundred million.... after a scientist found super massive galaxies that were older than the predicted age of the UNIVERSE.... he tested it by a very standard test used to test the age of galaxies... by using the red-shift as a base.... Then a couple scientists observed super massive galaxies that given scientific calculations they would take about the old predicted age of the universe for them to form..
So no we aren't able to look back within the first few nanoseconds of the universe's creation... because the universe jumps back a couple hundred million years every couple decades.... ANd even then !! the method used to predict the age... has an error of give or take a million years...
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
First off. Someone stated that their friends used the church to take away their accountability. I assume they were talking about the catholic church, but who knows. First off, if they ask for forgiveness, they are only forgiven if they are repentant. This means that they are truly sorry for their sins, they trust that God is able and will forgive their sins, and they TRULY attempt to change their ways. Going and sleeping around and asking for forgiveness will not do it, it requires a change in ways. And if you believe in God, you believe that he cannot be fooled, so it would take an honest attempt to change. This is all according to the Bible.
To someone who said science is taught to teach children about all sorts of science and the theories in it, so why shouldn't evolution be taught because evolution has some supporting evidence. First off: Creation has supporting evidence too, FROM SCIENCE. Science has been used to support the Bible to an extent. Like evolution, science has not proved intelligent design either. Since their is so much controversy, and teaching evolution also influences religious beliefs, it is my belief that neither evolution, creation, or any other "beginning of life" theory should be discussed in a required science course. If they want to have an elective that focuses on it, or an "evolution Club", that's fine, I don't care. But when I have kids, I don't want them to get taught lies in school.
-------------------
98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 2% who hasn't, copy & paste this in your signature.
Linkster from:
-Battlefield 2
-Delta Force: Black Hawk Down (Retired)
-SWG (Retired)
-EQ2 (Retired)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing I will say. You look at the origins of different religions and their being in existence. The relative assumption you can make out of all this is very simple.
"God" or a supernatural being was in some way depicted by civilizations and groups of people around the world with simple objective.
At times when humanity could not break down and explain a phenomenon or have a valid reasoning, they needed a figure beyond the abilities of human kind to hold responsible for whatever event took place.
At other times, humanity with no knowledge of what death was had to place themselves with a belief of some "paradise" where a supernatural figure would keep order beyond that of the human civilizations.
Everything had to be ideal in favor of mankind, and I understand that. Human kind has fear of what is unknown to them. We generally as living organisms have a tendency to stay away from or isolate what's unknown to us.
But now with all the christians acting the way they are doing...I really have to say things have gone way over bay these last few decades.
I'm not saying all christians are like this, but people who go to church to ask for forgiveness without any modest idea of what they do in their daily lives. I think this is completely ridiculous. Before asking for forgiveness, do something useful during the time you'd rather be praying. I'm sure your GOD won't damn you for being active rather than talking nonsense.
Grouping grouping...I don't know how many times I have mentioned this. Grouping does no good in religion. Religion and grouping is a cult itself, and very unreasonable at times. When a group of believers come together to so called "enlighten" others of a certain religion the whole idea of their religion becomes wrong.
A denomination will do anything to fullfill what they believe right. It will not matter whether or not others will test against this. When people act as a group too large to handle then their actions become unreasonable. It's the same thing happening with the protestants as we speak.
There's a reason for sayings such as, the person is smart, but the people are dumb.
And lastly, don't give all that non-sensical bullshit about what is right and wrong. It's not what people think that decides what is right and wrong. Time and place will tell you whether or not you were right. You can justify yourself as much as you want, but it won't mean anything.
When the Vatican executed all those 2nd degree believers 800years ago, the majority believed the Vatican was doing the right thing in the name of GOD. You look at that now and say it was wrong...and so the Vatican has admitted to their sins.
What we believe is right and wrong won't be worth a dime paying attention to in many many years to come. Humanity has a tendency to label whatever they feel is right and wrong according to time and place.
This also means, please don't expect Christanity to be the only true religion with Jesus...bla bla bla GOD. You seriously expect people of different religions to sit on their asses and believe that your GOD is the only true god. Some of those other religions happen to be older than Christanity. Enforcing beliefs are not going to help at all, and claiming other religions to be idol, just makes christanity look bad.
I have no specific belief in a deity, but seriously the last few years of this christian non sense has me laughing my ass off as well.
You christians believe and have such firm belief in your religion and GOD being the only true god. That is great, keep it to yourselves. Going out against other religions claiming that other religions are just a scam... that's really a great way to convince others. Add to the fact that those scam religions existed as long as christanity has.
It's like having the Hindus trying to convince you that their religion is the only true religion. I'm sure even one christian is going to fall for that. As a matter of fact, it's exactly why all this is really damn funny. As much as you protestants make an issue out of this (especially tv-publizising evagelists) and try to convince everyone Christanity is the only true savior to eternal damnation. The others you 'tried" to convince probably think you're as insane a schizo who hears shit in their minds.
GRIND sucks? You wanna be max level in a month?
Since when did society award easy-goers and lazy-fools?
MAKES ME PHOBIC OF STUPIDITY!
This is my last post in this topic, and for good reason to. You won't be swayed, nor will I. Yes, I did go to church when I was a kid, but primarily slept through it, doodled pictures, etc. I am not ruled by a christian belief as you claim I am. My personal morals are based on my own beliefs. It just doesn't "feel right" to kill someone so I don't. It doesn't feel right to steal so I don't. It doesn't feel right to rape someone so I don't. It's not because of some religious babble, but because of my own conclusions of life. Thou shalt not kill is not a moral, it is a law. And, it was not introduced by any religious sect. It was found on the first recorded written law; the Code of Hammarabi (sp), which predates Moses' fraudulent meeting with God.
What I find interesting is that you say that you do not believe in the political heiarchy of the church, yet you claim yourself to be a christian. If you do not believe in the organization that backs your faith, then you are not a member of that religion. Being an "outlaw" or "rogue" in your religion sets you apart from that religion. It's like any political organization. You cannot denounce a government and still claim to be a citizen.
As for atheists or agnostics having faith in some other "god" is so not true. I live my life normally. I just don't waste my time believing in something that doesn't exist. I'm not here trying to prove whether god exists or not; but whether morals are based on religion. What you believe is your own decision, but interestingly it is always the religious folk who try to push their beliefs on others. You say you don't, but you do. It is even taught in your churches. "Go convert, go minister" they say. You don't see atheists or agnostics trying to convert others to their belief, but you constantly see christians bothering others.
Now on a more general note. There have been posts that have been very disrespectful (not you aldaron, you are always respect whether in disagreement or not) and will not be tolerated. I hate locking topics such as this because people have opinions; however, if posts become more disrespectful or hateful I will lock this topic and dump it immediately.
First, there is not the ONE christian church. There are Catholics, Protestants and members of the eastern Orthodox churches, to name only the major branches. Those branches of Christianity do not share one hierarchy. So if one does not believe in the hierarchy of a certain brand of Christianity, it does not mean he is not a Christian. At worst, he cannot remain a member of that particular branch.
Second, it is debatable if rejecting the leadership makes you a non-member of your religious community. It would depend on how strongly the community beliefs in hierarchic leadership.
Talking about the Catholic Church, you might be correct because the leading role of the Pope is part of the creed. You cannot reject that and remain fully catholic.
In other churches, the hierarchy may be a less essential part of the common belief and being a dissident might not automatically disqualify you as a member.
Actually christians are supposed to attempt to spread their beliefs at every opportunity.
"Jesus said to him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the
kingdom of God."
"Jesus said, "Go, preach, heal and travel light."
Rom. 10:13-15 Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
Like I keep saying I might not believe it but I feel I do my best to understand it.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Christian..
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
Not one who follows the leader of the church... Not one who believes in the pope..
A christian believes in and lives by the teachings of Jesus. that's why it's called Christian... cuz its when you try to be Christ - like not Pope - like not Catholic-Like... Christ-like
Special Note: 1. Jesus never tried to fool God by doing sins and askin forgiveness half heartedly,
2. Jesus was merciful towards Christians and Sinners alike,
3. Jesus was not part of any church, and did not follow the words of the pharasies (spelling err)
4. Jesus scolded the pharasees on occassion... and was not liked by many...
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Two misconceptions of christianity that has existed in most posts here:
All christianity is the not the same. there are many many different types of christianity, which ironically, some don't even follow the teachings of christ. My church has no hierarchy at all, so that whole idea was off track as far as my beliefs.
Secondly, Christians were not called to harass others into following their beliefs. You must realize, that as a christian we believe that to be saved, you have to hear about the Bible. Now if you knew you could save someone's life by getting them to believe you, wouldn't you at least try? The idea of conversion is very similar. We aren't doing it for ourselves, we are doing it for the person we attempt to convert. One of the major ways to get others accepting of christianity is by leading by example, as someone else stated.
-------------------
98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 2% who hasn't, copy & paste this in your signature.
Linkster from:
-Battlefield 2
-Delta Force: Black Hawk Down (Retired)
-SWG (Retired)
-EQ2 (Retired)