Evolution is compatible with religion?

[psyche101]

The notion that God must perforce be open to inspection, like some hitherto secret installation subject to UN inspection team acting under Security Council authority, is fanciful.

That is not required or asked for. There is no reason to consider a supernatural force acting outside of nature, no observation, no data set reveals such. God does not have to sit for an interview, all we need is something that says "this works outside of nature" Nothing like that exists outside of imagination.

Reality looks much more like a one-way mirror to me,

Your way and your way, yes that sounds about right.

and I don't base that on imagination, but I will not relate anecdotal evidence.

Do not lie, of course you are basing this of imagination. You have not presented on shred of evidence, you have just protested people much smarter than you, and insisted that ancient mystics have a true path, that's complete and utter BS Habitat, I expect that from Walker, you are just as bad if not worse than he is.

I still think some half-wit has hacked psyche 101's account, I was sure he was a much better advocate in the past.

The only halfwit I am seeing post is you, you have not even given me anything to debate, you have offered a lousy opinion of nothing that somehow results in God, which is about what I expect from relgion. I bet rags to riches that you are one of those gutless wonders that calls out insults and then runs and hides. Pathetic really. You could not be more disappointed in me, than I am in you. I am not an advocate of relgion, and I am not as stupid as you would like me to be - so stupid that I believe the garbology you are spewing on a verbal assurance - what normal person would do that? You ask too much, you offer no evidence and you have nothing to impart, the way I see it, you're just another troll.

You don't think it's ...................Do you ?

Seriously? Come up with your own crap would you?

[psyche101]

Huh? This is definitely news to me, I don't know of any Christian who doesn't think God is the creator. Where do most Christians think the universe came from in Australia?

Mr Walker is ANYTHING but a typical Aussie

[Grimmie]

Point by point might be a good idea, because I see much of that existing because of relgion. Indoctrination, religious war, fundamentalism, all directly related from what I see.

I do not ignore them, I see them as insignificant next to the evils of relgion, I often praise Missionaries, and know it can help people with drug problems and the like, but that happens without relgion too. We would not have ISIS without relgion, or Wahhabism. No 911, no Catholic Pedophiles being covered up. Poorer people would not be fighting for some imaginary being, they would be trying to better their land and produce.

What biological assistance? I have no idea what you are referring to there. I do admit is assisted out social development, and have done so many times, it did put us on a path to science, law and social order. That is why I always also insist that it should not be destroyed. It was an important part of our development I agree, but in this technological day and age, with so much real information, that is is now redundant. Education needs to replace indoctrination, and let's face it, if we did not have indoctrination, relgion would be a shadow of what it is today. I find it very hard to believe that if we were not influenced at birth, that people today would still find it a viable option as opposed to "the evidence" We have thousands of papers describing these processes, and why they are what they are, or some ancient book full of known tall tales. It is not even a contest when put on a level playing field IMHO.

I will lump these two parts together.

I will explain why religion isn't the issue behind many of these things. I will start in the Middle East, and I will actually start with a course I took in my first semester that led me towards the study of religion and history. That topic is the Crusades.

Nearly everyone thinks the Crusades were about religion. Religion actually had very little to do with it. Sure, many of the Crusaders thought they were "doing it for God" but the root cause and those leading it were in it for land and money. The "Call to Crusade" by the Pope was in response to Byzantium's request for protection against the Islamic Empire that was threatening their boarders. From there it turned into a quest for riches and land. Let me give you a few examples of how we know this was not a Islam vs Christian thing.

1. Crusaders massacred Jews on the way there.

2. Crusaders massacred Christian cities that were in Muslim lands.

3. There were Christian cities living in peace, for the most part, while Muslims controlled the land. The same as when Christians were in control. The relationships were generally peaceful. The conflict was the fight for the land by the opposing powers.

4. "The Fourth Crusade (1202–04) was a Western European armed expedition originally intended to conquer Muslim-controlled Jerusalem by means of an invasion through Egypt. Instead, a sequence of events culminated in the Crusaders sacking the city of Constantinople, the capital of the Christian-controlled Byzantine Empire." -Wikipedia

It was this class that I learned that the Crusades actually had very little to do with religion, while everyone assumes it is the only reason. That is why I began studying religion and history, to understand the role it played.

Let's stay on the topic of the Middle East. Obviously you are familiar with the Sunni-Shia divide. (I know I will need to provide sources for the following stuff, that will take some time, but I will take it if you want me to. It might be better for me to make another post on it.) The Sunni-Shia divide is actually a cultural conflict, not a religious one.

If we look at a variety of maps one will see that the Sunni cover an area mostly made up of modern day Iran. The Iranians are the historical Persians, which were Zoroastrian. Their language and religion (Zoroastrianism) is Indo-European. The Arab culture and Semitic language are African in origin. Early Judaism comes from this language and cultural group. We see Zoroastrainism mix with, and change Judaism and Christianity when it comes in contact with it. It is the same issue with the Sunni-Shia divide. The Sunni are Indo-European and the Shia are Arab/African. Another group, the Kurds, are their own group, a little different from both. These were different groups of people with different cultures. This is the root of the conflict.

Still on the Middle East...You bring up ISIS and 9/11. Once again, this is not a religious issue. This comes down to understanding the history of the area and it dates back to World War 1.

In WWI the Ottoman Empire, which made up much of the ME, was on the losing side. After that, the land was divided up to form the countries on our maps today. Want to take a guess on who drew the borders? We did of course. When I say we, I mean the West. And we did it in a vary particular way. We have documents to prove this...but what we did was divided them up so that we would have political and economic influence of the area. We drew their borders in a way that would cause conflict. The reason for that is because if you want to prevent the oppressed from rising up against you, you keep them fighting each other. That's why instead of creating a "Kurdistan," we made them a minority in a number of countries. Guess what happened when they were a minority in these countries? Genocide. We set these countries up to have civil wars and we keep getting involved.

ISIS...Do you know who ISIS is? Years ago there was a war in the country of Iraq. Often in wars the strongest side wins. The winning side was the Ba'ath Party and Saddam Hussein. He kept a stable country and ruled with an iron fist. The US decided to go in and dispose of him and establish a new government. We made two big mistakes. 1. We took the stronger party out of power. 2. We did not include the politicians or military of the defeated party be involved in the new government. Those leaders and soldiers became what we call ISIS, and they are now fighting to regain their land. Sure they are doing it in the name of Islam, but the fact of the matter is that they exist because we created them by eliminating the stable government in Iraq.

9/11...This one does have a religious componant, but goes back to the Western domination in the Middle East. If you did not know, Osama bin Laden worked with the US to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Many say we helped him and then gave up on them and left him to fight his own battles. Either way, here is quote...

"According to former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader was motivated by a belief that U.S. foreign policy has oppressed, killed, or otherwise harmed Muslims in the Middle East,[55] condensed in the phrase, "They hate us for what we do, not who we are." Nonetheless, bin Laden criticized the U.S. for its secular form of governance, calling upon Americans to convert to Islam and "reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury", in a letter published in late 2002.[56] His vocal criticism of Western government and society, and his claims that they were dominated by Jews, earned him respect from various sectors of the far right in Europe and North America."-Wikipedia

His objection was to US foreign policy...which was put in place back after WWI. He is correct about his objections to the US.

The religious aspect here is that he believed Islam was the solution to the problem. You also have to remember that bin Laden is a literalist and extremist. You are always going to have those, but they are not representative of the vast majority of Muslims.

If we look at the root cause of conflict with the Middle East, it is not religion, it is money and capitalism. If the West would stop screwing with them, things will eventually calm down.

Before addressing the other issues, let's look at the pedophiles in the Catholic Church.

This one is only odd in the sense that it is typically young boys. Why that is, I am not sure...but if look at sexual assult in general, it comes down to having a power structure. The US military has a big issue with sexual assult. It has issues with it not being reported and not being handled properly (like in the Catholic Church case.) The reason that happens is the power structure. Do you think it is any coincidence that high ranking officers often have young, good looking, female airmen assisting them? It is quite simple, when there is a rank structure, it is easy to abuse people. Someone that is high ranking can ruin your career or put you on the fast track. There are so many issues in the military, I am not going to get into it. There is also nothing religious about it. The Catholic Church just happens to be a religious organization, but this kind of thing happens in many different places.

On the other points you mentioned...

No more affiliations to imaginary beings forcing us to war on behalf of the God p***ing contest.

Very few wars are religious at the root. Just because the sides are of different religions, it does not make it about religion.

"No megalomaniacs invoking God to rape countries.

Don't need a God to do that...

No more religious Law (Shariah - stonings beheadings etc etc for "ungodly acts")

You kind of have a point on this one...but many Muslims countries are very secular and civil. Of course we can point at the ones that are not...but we cannot ignore the ones that do not fit.

Also, let me make the point about culture here. Many of these customs are cultural and predated the religion. Compare the Old Testament with many modern Arab countries. You will find that Judaism and Islam are much more similiar than either are to Christianity. There is not by accident. Both Arabs and Jews are Semitic people, where Christianity comes mostly from Indo-Europeans. Let me give another example...Female genital mutilation...

People blame that on Islam. If that is the case, why do Christians, and Christian countries in Africa practice it? Like Reza Azlan says...it's an African problem, not a Islam problem. It is cultural.

No Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism is not only religious...

"Fundamentalism usually has a religious connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.[1] However, fundamentalism has come to apply to a tendency among certain groups—mainly, though not exclusively, in religion—that is characterized by a markedly strict literalism as applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions,[2][3][4][5] leading to an emphasis on purity and the desire to return to a previous ideal from which advocates believe members have strayed. Rejection of diversity of opinion as applied to these established "fundamentals" and their accepted interpretation within the group is often the result of this tendency.[6]" -Wikipedia

No Indoctrination (people would actually have to LEARN things as opposed to being told something "that will do" for now)

Once again, this is not limited to religion. Look at politics. Many people on both sides are indoctrinated in right-wing or left-wing ideologies.

No more impedance of science (which still goes on today - see the hide the bones campaign)

Religion certainly does impede evolution, and I fight against that, but once again, politics...Climate change deniers, Anti-Vaxxers, all kinds of science being ignored or disputed on the basis of politics.

No more unfair influence over voters

If you agree with someone because they say "Jesus," you're an idiot. But religion certainly is not the only thing influencing voters. It seems racism seems to be a real big topic...

No more kids dying so they do not offend God (see JW's Blood Transfusion horror stories)

Yes, I have heard of this, my wife is a nurse. It is horrible and stupid. Once again, not only religion. Look at the Anti-Vaxxers...apparently they are using "science..."

No more families broken up to maintain religious affiliations (this actually happened to my own family)

Once again, this does happen. It happened to a friend. But again, family break up from non-religious reason. Politics is a big one.

My point is that none of these issues are rooted in religion. Religion can be a reason or a tool, but the idea that these things would be eliminated if we simply got rid of religion, is nothing more than wishful thinking.

We have to be careful we trying to reduce everything down to religion. That is called being a functional reductionist. We have to be careful about trying to reduce things down to one thing, such as religion, because then people say "religion did it," and not actually understand the real cause.

As far as education, I wish it were that easy...I was planning on being a teacher, so I get it. The problem is that it simply doesn't work how you are suggesting it will. If simply teaching 8th grade biology would turn creationists in to evolution believers, Dawkins would have turned tons of creationsts around...In American, undergrads are split about 50/50 Democrat to Republican, even though they had the same amount of education. A buddy of mine took a class with me called The Evolution and Biology of Sex. Guess what? He doesn't believe in evolution. This blows my mind! Evolution is the premise of the entire class! We had the same class and obviously have opposing views. Same thing in my field. Many people turn religious, many turn atheist. People come to different conclusions from the same material.

We certainly do have an education problem in this country, but simply increasing education will not get rid of religion. It may reduce it, but if it was as simple as teaching someone 8th grade biology, there would be very few creationists...

Sorry that was so much, that took a while...good talk

[psyche101]

This topic is so far off track it's having adventures in Narnia.

Well we got three walkers going now...........

[Habitat]

Worse than Walker ?

. I bet rags to riches that you are one of those gutless wonders that calls out insults and then runs and hides. Pathetic really.

You are losing it. 37,000 posts may be too many.

[Grimmie]

So? That is exactly what I said

A belief is an acceptance that something is true .Not KNOWLEDGE that it is true.

it is also the investment of trust or belief in something or someone as i pointed out.

What am i missing.? What are you arguing?

No one needs ANY evidence to create a belief that something exists, or to accept that a proposition is true.

If they have evidences then they don't need (or have the choice to be able) to accept something is /may be, true, they will KNOW it to be true.

You just don't like the term. You are doing whatever you can to avoid saying "belief." Maybe I believe something because we have the knowledge. Maybe I believe something because it is a scientific theory.

[Grimmie]

To me religion supports creation and it always amazes me how people see creation and evolution as describing the same thing, when they don't.

Creation deals only with how living things came into existence and doesn't bother itself with what comes after.

Evolution deals with changes to living things that already exist.

To me they are different things but I can see how some scientists might argue that they are compatible

That's the thing about religion...there is no right or wrong thing to believe. Who is anyone to say someone is doing it wrong?

[Grimmie]

Maybe for you. For me it is clear. Knowledge is what has been proven to me by learned experience, physical demonstration, and personal testing.

All else is a form of belief.

Some beliefs are more justified and informed than some others, but until or unless you have knowledge, you have belief. Once you have knowledge. belief/disbelief becomes logically impossible..

Do you believe our air is breathable, or do you KNOW it is. Do you believe you are alive or do you KNOW you are.?

The only thing that can be proven is math. Science works on the premise of disproving things.

[Mr Walker]

I agree to a point that anyone who believes in a God who created everything could be termed a 'creationist'. But in common usage this term is limited to biblical literalists and proponents of ID. There is a large number of Christians who accept evolutionary theory but continue to believe that their God is the ultimate creator of all things. He existed before the universe and is not part of it - but can interact with it. This God is not a product of the universe.

It might be useful to define what one means by evolution. The OP, I believe, is referring to biological evolution - not the origins of the universe.

All the Christians I know view their God as the creator of all things. Not a product of, but the creator, of the universe. Do you seriously disagree with this?

Absolutely, and so do the people surveyed around the world. I know almost no one outside of the few of my friends and family who are in fundamentalist churches who believe god pre-dated the universe or created the earth or humanity. There are a lot of people who dont know or dont care /even think about this issue, and others who cant decide, but almost none who see a god creator That is why i am so amazed at your different perception.

But then, as i said only 9% of Australians believe in a creator form of god, so my experience is probably common.

Evolution includes the NATURAL process of evolution (a process of change) from the big bang to the present day. A sub set of that is biological evolution, but stars planets and solar systems and the universe it self evolve as well. Of course i have "known" this from almost birth as it was all which was taught to me at home and school .

It still comes as a shock to me when i come across a modern person who believes in a creator god ( My wife was the first whom I encountered, which was a double shock, but there are some from all walks of life. I know creationist doctors, lawyers, scientists accountants teachers etc. ) .

Even so I don't know any non fundamentalist Christians, educated in Australia, who do not believe in the evolution of the universe and of ourselves.

i don't think i get how you mentally differentiate the two sorts of creator god. To me if a god is a creator of the universe and thus stands outside of space and time that is one thng (which i find to be physically impossible by the way) If it is a god from within the universe that is another (and also quite physically possible)

One is a creator god, the other is not. Few modern people, including Christians see the bible as anything other than an allegory but also a template for how we can all live, and a set of moral principles

Most believers and church goers whom I know, find god to be several things.

A concept, or idea, which gives moral authority to certain rules and laws.

Second, for some, a personal intercessor, saviour, patron etc

But for most, god is a spirit, or life force, which exists in the universe and thus surrounds us.

Many find it can be connected to, via prayer, and that it can offer psychological and physiological comfort and support, via belief in its existence and interest in us

So, for many, it is a powerful jungian archetype, with real powers, due to the investment of belief in it.

Since the seventies, Christianity in Australia, across almost all churches, has been concentrated on the social gospel of Christ, about how to live and how to treat other humans. .

Edited March 24, 2016 by Mr Walker

[Grimmie]

There really isn't a new atheist movement, as such.

Dawkins and the rest published their books back in the early 2000s which picked up a bunch of press looking at already established atheist groups which got labeled New Atheist because they were so aggressive. And aggressive here means writing books, blogs, joining debates, and having twitter.

Like with militant atheist, the term got adopted by these people but it was originally meant to label them as something different from previous atheist writers who were supposedly more respectable. Though this appearance of respectability comes from selectively reading the works of these figures.

It also grew out of a response to increasing rhetoric of religious groups who refer to atheists as degenerate, immoral, sad and emotionally damaged people. A trope still very present in TV and film.

All this said none of the "four horsemen" have anything resembling a universal fan base and their views on religion itself tend to be stripped of nuance in order to make an easier strawman to abuse.

Habitat, however never mentions New Atheism in his post. He simply refers to atheism.

Some of this I agree with, some I don't. Maybe this is a discussion for another thread.

[Mr Walker]

The only thing that can be proven is math. Science works on the premise of disproving things.

That is not the point, nor really worth arguing about. You cant prove either maths or science to me unless i am involved in the process myself (although i can become a willing believer via justified belief, if i have a mind to accept your proofs, in faith, on your authority) .

For example if you tell me 2 plus 2 equals 4, I don't KNOW that to be true. But if i count out 2 lollies and add another two, and have 4 lollies in my hand, then I KNOW, that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

Thus for maths or science, knowledge comes from self experimentation and experience, observation, testing, logical thinking, analysis etc

THAT gives an individual the only true knowledge it can posses.

Ps it is false that science only works by disproving things. I could never have learned how to make explosive devices and chemical timers fuses etc, if my experiments only disproved what was possible.

The successful outcome of practical science is a physical result, demonstrating which theoretical models DO work. Failure also teaches us, but is not as much fun.

Well on second thought, actually one can have some spectacular failures, when experimenting with chemicals. . .

Edited March 24, 2016 by Mr Walker

[psyche101]

I know, it was directed at Walker. And I don't blame you in reflecting on the supposedly exclusiveness of experiences. I guess, what I wanted to input, was that it's not that exclusive. I feel, I have had my experiences, but the only difference is, it's not just the failing to get an explanation for them just yet, but to still try attempt. And that is why, I don't go on making everyone believe it. I myself, do believe a lot of people have had these experiences. But because, more people have a more healthy mind to it and feel how the atmosphere of it being looked at, there are more who either don't talk about it, or just say it's something they feel they can't explain yet, and it's not as important to push on others, as maybe a rare few do.

Hey MLady

I am not sure the genuine experience you had is seen the same way by others, as mentioned, so many "Walkers out there (The UFO sections used to be full of them) seem to have "everything" happen to them. I think that is why I see your views as so much more compatible with modern thinking. If more people like you spoke as openly - and in the UFO section you could tell the difference between an attention getter and a genuine experience - and honestly as well to others then I have little doubt that a great many of these mysteries would unravel in half the time. I do not find in general that genuine people with real conundrums that seek a realistic answer - not one they already have predetermined - are scared to speak out. And more often than not, the community just here at UM does find a more than satisfactory answer for such posters. As said with you, I see that as a way forward, being honest, open and speaking about what one sees "exactly" Like describing a falling light in the sky as opposed to a landing spaceship.

I'm thinking, why does it have to shoved onto others of what you want others to think? If it's because you look at it a certain way, so be it. But, keep it to yourself. Everyone is different. Like me, I just reflect on just the experience itself, and have the adventure in reading about others, and finding the explanation behind it.

I think sharing is a good idea. Insisting is not.

Well if that's him, that's him. If he notices, ( or should really notice) no one believes him, then stop trying to make everyone believe it. ( in fact, again, everyone is different. I could never understand, and that is me, why someone depends on one little object like that )

Problem is, Abiogenesis is a big deal, many people are on that trail, and his views infect children, which I see as a type of crime myself:

LINK - A Map Showing Which U.S. Public Schools Teach Creationism to Kids

I definitely can understand that. And damn straight on the part too. I think it takes a strong and centered mind to see that, what is all around you, and that something will come up to label it something else, and then in the end, label what one experiences. The idea of letting in something new, and then bringing more to the table of one's experience. Like why I started the thread in the UFO section of these boards about the zig zagging star. Yeah, it's to share my experience, and read others that are similar. But, if someone can show ( and I think you imparted a lot of info and links there, thank you ) a reasonable explanation, then great. I did, in the end, want a real grounded explanation for what I saw.

But we cannot get a real grounded explanation without the fine detail now lost, like exact times and locations which we can put into Heavens Above in order to see if we can match up what you saw, with what is not the sky, if we had that, we have a decent chance of narrowing that one down, if not altogether solving it, if you have a look a Jim Obergs posts, he has resolved many claims like this.

I guess that is a point where we need to have faith - in ourselves to speak to others honestly and openly.

Yeah, one can feel that this could be a sign of something, I just don't think one should count on it as a surety. I do feel we are still part of the world, where there is a lot of mundane things happening. I like things like this, but it's not always true.

I still am hesitant to consider my friend saying she prayed to God for money, and lo and behold she came across a twenty dollar bill on the ground. Oh, I'm sure she did, but I can always attribute that to coincidence. If God granted her money, it would be a wad $100's.

See - like God is going to grant Habitat money because he believes in him. If Habitat becomes a billionaire and flys me over to see his faith in God resulting in incredible fortune and gives me a couple million because God can direct him at more of it, I will re-evaluate my beliefs accordingly

I actually went to one site that sells books, and came across reviewers who raved about him and saying how scientific he was. I didn't think it would be good use to show how I felt about the book. ( really can't, cause I hadn't read it ) but I have noticed in the past, that most reviewers about a book, can get biased too. *shrugs*

I would suspect though that the previous premise of having to put food on the table comes into play here.

Try this review

LINK - STEPHEN MEYER’S FUMBLING BUMBLING AMATEUR CAMBRIAN FOLLIES

[Grimmie]

Why are atheists interested in religion?

Right now in the US we have religious fundamentalists attempting to pass their morality as law. We have a large effort to affect public education on science and history towards a fundamentalist religious viewpoint.

That in itself is enough for a secular minded person to have a say over religion.

If there were people who were actively campaigning that zombies are a real and present threat, if politicians were speaking about zombies and shifting public funds for zombie prep, while advocating that zombie biology or unlife biology should be taught in schools and Max Brook's WWZ should be presented as an alternative in world history, maybe there would be some real comparison there.

Speaking for myself, I tend to participate in thread on things like Ancient aliens. Not because I believe in them, but because a lot of real history and archaeology is subverted to make claims about their existence.

And I discuss it here because it is a discussion forum.

I discuss religion and skepticism here because this is a discussion forum.

This is really the last gasp of someone who knows their argument is fundamentally flawed, to complain that it is being discussed in the first place.

I feel the same way about Ancient Aliens too...being a history major, I want to kick them in the throat when I hear them speak. I actually did a paper on them in college...

I agree with why atheists are speaking out against religion, the problem is that it is not actually going to do anything.

Has anyone ever convinced someone of something by talking to someone in a condescending way, calling them idiots, and insulting what they believe?

If atheists are so smart, why can't they figure out that isn't a good approach to changing people's minds? It seems to me that they are more interested in yelling, screaming, and complaining because they are bitter over something religion did to them.

[psyche101]

Worse than Walker ?

Sad to say, but yes, Walker has produced links, he might misinterpret them possibly deliberately, maybe honestly, I can't really say, but I have my suspicion You do not bring anything to the discussion other than ridiculous claims that are not supported and then claim you have some sort of answer. You are a terrible poster, and yet to actually produce anything more than your personal belief, which we really do not care about. Mr Walker talks about subjects and himself, you seem to be more fixated on yourself alone.

Thing is, you do not seem to realise you are not at all impressive, rather the opposite. I know you are throwing Ad Homs in an attempt to get the thread shut down, as you sure have nothing offered for discussion.

You are losing it. 37,000 posts may be too many.

See - no substance, nothing on topic, unable to support your position. I would pity you, but you are just not worth it.

[Arbenol]

Absolutely, and so do the people surveyed around the world. I know almost no one outside of the few of my friends and family who are in fundamentalist churches who believe god pre-dated the universe or created the earth or humanity. There are a lot of people who dont know or dont care /even think about this issue, and others who cant decide, but almost none who see a god creator That is why i am so amazed at your different perception.

But then, as i said only 9% of Australians believe in a creator form of god, so my experience is probably common.

9%? That's pretty specific. Can you link to that figure? I'd be interested to see if we're talking about the same thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...liefsrev2.shtml

Many Christians have no problem in accepting the Big Bang theory. They see the cosmologists helping them to understand how God brought the world into being - the Big Bang could have been the mechanism God used. And there is nothing in the theory itself which proves that there is no such being as God.

And there are any number of articles out there saying the same thing. That many (especially younger) Christians view the scientific explanation of the creation of the universe as an account of how God did it.

i don't think i get how you mentally differentiate the two sorts of creator god. To me if a god is a creator of the universe and thus stands outside of space and time that is one thng (which i find to be physically impossible by the way) If it is a god from within the universe that is another (and also quite physically possible)

What two sorts of creator God? Who's differentiating? Do you even read the posts you respond to?

[Grimmie]

Last ones I am tackling tonight...

What is the argument that you're referring to?

Freud tried to make the argument that religion was a mental illness. Harris makes that same argument. Not sure if Dawkins says it outright, but he implies it is a mental illness or a virus.

Since when a judge should ''rule'' what is deserving of scientific inquiry? 1. He didn't have the background 2. His expertise on the matter was questionable.

I think it can only be a good thing for students to learn about the gaps/problems in Darwinism and to know about alternatives that are being researched.

There are not issues and gaps in the theory of evolution. That is what the entire case is about. They presented the science, refuted ID claims, and proved the ID proponents had a religious agenda. Many of the ID "experts" refused to testify under oath. This judge was a Conservative, appointed by G.W. Bush (who supported the teaching of creationism,) and still had to rule against ID. I think the best thing you can do is watch the documentary...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Edited March 24, 2016 by KevinGrimmie

[back to earth]

Man after my own heart!!!!!

On no! LG, you just let the kangaroo out of the bag!!!!

Indeedie ! Licorice lady

But you should have said 'out of the pouch'

[back to earth]

Quite possible to do, certainly much easier in the past, though, I found.

I wholeheartedly agree ! ........ and then they bought in dope testing

[Habitat]

Sad to say, but yes, Walker has produced links, he might misinterpret them possibly deliberately, maybe honestly, I can't really say, but I have my suspicion You do not bring anything to the discussion other than ridiculous claims that are not supported and then claim you have some sort of answer. You are a terrible poster, and yet to actually produce anything more than your personal belief, which we really do not care about. Mr Walker talks about subjects and himself, you seem to be more fixated on yourself alone.

Thing is, you do not seem to realise you are not at all impressive, rather the opposite. I know you are throwing Ad Homs in an attempt to get the thread shut down, as you sure have nothing offered for discussion.

See - no substance, nothing on topic, unable to support your position. I would pity you, but you are just not worth it.

Let others speak for themselves, the royal plural does not apply to you ! I hope the thread doesn't get shut down, it has become a source of laughs reading your comments.

[back to earth]

Mr Walker is ANYTHING but a typical Aussie

Not at all .... but we can pretty much tell what happened to him.

[psyche101]

He has doubts, the extreme atheist doesn't, in fact no confirmed atheist would bother arguing the point, any more than you would present counter-points to a flat-earther.

What doubts Habitat? You are an atheist too, you said you do not take any stock in modern gods. I have no idea what you are referring to.

In fact, it would probably be best if you did not reply, you are yet to offer anything for discussion, you have only departed pointless verbal assurances. I do believe you are attempting to have the thread shut down with your silly and rather childish Ad Homs.

[Habitat]

I wholeheartedly agree ! ........ and then they bought in dope testing

I wonder what psyche 101 was liking here, but I am surprised to find a serious horse player here. They show all the signs of being a little too clever for me these days, though I have better data than when I was a consistent winner. Haven't quite given up looking at new angles.

[back to earth]

9%? That's pretty specific. Can you link to that figure? I'd be interested to see if we're talking about the same thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...liefsrev2.shtml

And there are any number of articles out there saying the same thing. That many (especially younger) Christians view the scientific explanation of the creation of the universe as an account of how God did it.

What two sorts of creator God? Who's differentiating? Do you even read the posts you respond to?

..... and thats how it ends up , he tries to drive you off with frustration ( respond to a post without reading it ? Tactic 43 )

[psyche101]

Let others speak for themselves, the royal plural does not apply to you ! I hope the thread doesn't get shut down, it has become a source of laughs reading your comments.

Sure, what is it you have offered, and if that is not your intent, why the constant Ad Homs directed at me personally? I can see that you do not have anything to offer, but have come into the thread to make wild claims and throw insults.

Would you like to explain what insisting that Ancient Mystics are a path to true religiosity is, who these so called mystics are, why they are right and what they offer with regards to a path so knowledge of God(s)

Please feel free to open up finally and offer more than your personal assurances that your information is more than complete and utter rubbish. What have you got?

I have asked you to present "something" many times now, and we hear anecdotes about horse races, for goodness sakes man, you accuse me of losing the plot? Have a look at your own posting and let me know if you can condense it it into any more than verbal assurances about undescribed mumbo jumbo and Ad Homs. You are a poster boy for Atheism with your methods.

..... and thats how it ends up , he tries to drive you off with frustration ( respond to a post without reading it ? Tactic 43 )

Habitat seems to be his student. And he excels at it too. It's a segway demolition derby.

[Habitat]

What doubts Habitat? You are an atheist too, you said you do not take any stock in modern gods. I have no idea what you are referring to.

In fact, it would probably be best if you did not reply, you are yet to offer anything for discussion, you have only departed pointless verbal assurances. I do believe you are attempting to have the thread shut down with your silly and rather childish Ad Homs.

You let the mods worry about that, I'm sure they aren't going to be fooled by what you say, though I agree you don't have much grasp of what my points are. Let's face it, it is all a great mystery, it would not be a topic of interest if it was not. The only ones who think the mystery is solved are religious fanatics, and atheist extremists.