toomanyhelicopters wrote:

Linus VP wrote:Now, Creationism is not a scientific theory because it is not disprovable. It might be true, of course. But I could come up with ten thousand explanations for the origin of life on earth that are not disprovable, and any one of them might be true. Evolution is a scientific theory because experiments that have been performed support it. The data support it. We can't see gravitation, either, but we can observe the effects of it, construct hypotheses as to how it works, perform experiments to test it, and revise our theory accordingly. The theory of universal gravitation is not really a controversial one, and the theory of evolution is not either, at least among serious scientists.

gravitation is a funny one. did you know that in the past decade, science has seen evidence that not only is the universe expanding, but it is actually expanding at an accellerated rate? to quote the former fermilab scienticion that told me about this years ago, it appears that "gravitation, on a large scale, is actually repulsive rather than attractive". it was about 5 or 6 years ago that we had this conversation. i asked him what was the latest and greatest thing going on in the particle physics world, he being the only person i've ever known to be an insider in that arena.

i've recently seen stuff on PBS that has made mention of this same phenom as something science is wrestling with right now. so yeah, gravitation is maybe controversial. they may have been missing a huge part of the picture for the first however-many hundreds or thousands of years. or not.

OK, fair. But actually, that illustrates my point quite well. At one point, observations were made, experiments performed, hypotheses tested, calculations done, and it was decided, based on all that, that gravity was an attraction between any two objects in the universe with a force proportional to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them (have I got that right?). This law of gravity was held to be true for many years, and is still practically true if you're not talking about things that are very very tiny or things that are very very close to the edge of the universe. We can still use this law to make accurate predictions about how most things behave. However, as you note, new experiments have been made, new data recorded, and when the data do not support the theory, the theory is altered. Now, in addition to the laws of Newton, we have the laws of Einstein, and we may add to those the laws of someone else soon. The exact same scientific process occurs with evolution. And not with creationism.

If you believe in God, and especially if you believe in creationism, you need to recognize that that belief is nothing more or less than faith. You should not try to muster evidence to support your belief. You need to be comfortable with irrationality. I'm not criticizing your faith. I choose the rational, the theist chooses the irrational. The creationist even more so. If you feel that that is a criticism, it's because you value rationality over irrationality. If you value rationality over irrationality, you should reconsider belief in a God. I, personally, believe there's nothing wrong with being irrational from time to time, and there's nothing wrong with faith. It's just not for me.

And all through this discussion, I keep thinking about this:

Somebody wrote:I contend that you and I are both atheists, that I just believe in one fewer god than you do, and when you understand why you choose not to believe in all the other possible gods, you will understand why I choose not to believe in yours.

toomanyhelicopters wrote:i do the same. only my common sense is real weird. common sense also tells me that the likelihood of a living force beyond our understanding is just as plausible, if not moreso, than what your common sense tells you, namely, a series of astoundingly unlikely events all lined up absolutely perfectly in a fashion such that energy just so happened to turn into the right "stuff", which then settled in just the right corner of the giant mess of "stuff", and had the exact unlikely conditions arise such where life just spontaneously happened in a way that, by the way, science can't begin to describe. can it? has science told you in a clear and plausible way how LIFE ITSELF spontaneously comes into being? how does that work out?

And therein lies the heart of this issue I think - incredulity at the possibility of chance dictating existence. It puts me in mind of those lottery winners that ascribe winning to something other than pure chance. They'll say it was because of their choice of numbers - significant because of their own personal experiences, or they've always believed that they would win and that there was a predestined inevitability to it. They seem unable to accept that their numbers appeared totally by chance and that there wasn't an invisible hand guiding the outcome.
I don't think that with the level of scientific understanding humans have it's particularly difficult to see existence as a lottery win of sorts - the numbers we needed happened to get called. The idea that factors necessary to facilitate the development of the universe converged and eventually produced us seems pretty rational given what we know.
People cope with the realisation of their own mortality in different ways. Religion is a comfortable buffer against any notion that you have a finite conscious existence in this world. Some people choose to accept that reality and some people choose to defer to the false hope that servitude to divine forces has to offer.

chauncey wrote:Hairs have been split, balls have collided in outer space, this discussion continues to polarize each side like one of this nature will do...

First: Jesus was asked directly when on trial if he was the Son of God. He said yes.

Matt. 26:63-64:

Matthew wrote:But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mark 15:2-5

Mark wrote:And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it. And the chief priests accused him of many things; but he answered nothing. And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee. But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marveled.

Luke 23:3:

Luke wrote:And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? ANd he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

John 18:33-34,37

John wrote:Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?...Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

I can see, if one is already predisposed to believe that Jesus is the son of God, how one might stretch these answers until they support that belief. But read them carefully. He did not say yes.

While evolution is an interesting idea, it is not something I "know" just because some observations have been made about pretty disparate occurences. While on the other hand, I can make a similar inference about the universe in how there is an amazing order at work, and how could there be any other design except the one that exists, has existed, and will exist.

Is it not possible that evolution is part of the design? I mean, I don't believe this myself, being an atheist. But isn't it possible that God created the mechanism of evolution just as He created gravity and morality? Because, if He didn't create evolution, He sure created a hell of a lot of evidence for it.

I think it's quite ridiculous to place a hierarchy on primitive cultures vs. post-industrialized "enlightened" cultures, just like it's ridiculous to say one style of music is better because it's more "advanced" than another. Evolution, methinks, has allowed "rational" thinkers to run wild with the idea that everything moves in one straight line and is advancing. Towards what, exactly? Playing computer chess in space? You find my faith astounding, I find yours equally so.

I agree with you about this idea about moving in one straight line and advancing. This is an illustration of the idea that "a little learning is a dangerous thing". People who understand evolution know that evolution definitely does not claim that everything moves in one straight line and is advancing - quite the opposite, actually. It's people that have heard a little about evolution but don't really understand it that have this misconception. I'm not going to claim that as my faith, and I'm not going to consider the "Christianity" of the crusades and the inquisition as your faith.

I'm not here to trade insults. I think that redemption is something worth defending. I think that love is the greatest thing one can possibly partake in, and the most worthwhile thing you can do.

This atheist agrees with you on that point.

I don't understand how one could not make the most of this physical life, christian or not. Believing in the afterlife doesn't mean giving up on this one. I was ready to give up on this one long before! (that's another story, and not appropriate here). I've got too much to live for, yet the thought of dying tomorrow doesn't bother me. Don't misconstrue, I seek life, not death!

Again, I agree with you, totally. But I also should warn you that

John wrote:He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

If you base your morality on your own perception, then what is the difference between your morality and Ted Bundy's? Who's cuisine reigns supreme?

Mine. Look, your morality is based on your own perception too, the perception that there is a God, that God created a morality, and that God put that morality down in the Bible (certain parts of it, anyway). This is really no less contingent than my morality.

It just becomes relative to you. A little dash of this, a dash of that, voila! One person does their 9 to 5, the other person decides to blow up some buildings with a bunch of people in them.

Is your claim that people with a deep and abiding faith in an objective, God-given morality don't blow up some buildings with a bunch of people in them?

I took a step back from gazing into the void. Hatred and nihilism were leading me to dark places I no longer wanted to go. I turned to love and was redeemed through Christ. I really don't see anything irrational about that at all.

Again, I'm not criticizing your faith when I say it's irrational. If you feel that that is a criticism, that says more about your judgment of rationality and irrationality than about my opinion of your faith.

I admire faith greatly, especially in cases like yours, when it turns people against hate and nihilism, and towards love, which is truly the greatest thing. When faith, as in your case, allows people to love their fellow man, despite differences in religion, or their profession of questionable morality. I've met many people who have faith as you do, that allows them to be a more complete, loving, caring person, and not a hateful, judgmental person. And, again, it is not a criticism or a judgment of this beautiful faith to say that it is irrational.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:you need to recognize that that belief is nothing more or less than faith. You should not try to muster evidence to support your belief. You need to be comfortable with irrationality.

I keep wanting to say something along these lines. The line "without faith I'm nothing" is sincere - without a person's willingness to believe the irrational, religion goes out the window.

All these efforts by Christians (other religions don't seem to do it so much, or at least not as visibly) to claim their unique mythology as scientific fact seems... well, I know not all Christians do it, but it seems to be avoiding the fact that faith is not fact. When faith becomes fact, faith is no longer needed, and dies.

Faith is not akin to science. A Christian isn't theorizing, based on observation, that God exists.

I don't think it's necessary for Christian creation mythology, or the gospels, to be historically factual in order to justify a belief in the existence of God.

Rotten Tanx wrote:

Religious thought is not a static enterprise. It's also not unanimous. That doesn't mean God changes.

But if so many people can be so wrong for so long (assuming most christians believe in evolution now) then how do they know that they're correct about anything? If such a large part of a religion can change then it could happen again. And again. God may not change, but how do we know that anyone really knows anything about God? Including that he exists?

Don't take my word for it. You're a big boy now. Seek, question, verify. People are flawed. That's how they were wrong for so long. They were wrong about the end times. They were wrong about the crusades. They may have been wrong about the 1-week creation. We'll always be wrong about something. Don't follow leaders. Watch the parking meters.

I also agree with whomever said the prostitute is just as much a sinner as the priest. That is true.

NPR had an interview with the inventor of the laser today. Charles Townes. He has been making the case for the convergence of religion and science since the 60's. It's a good read. If anyone understands the scientific method, it's him.
http://www.science-spirit.org/articles/ ... icle_ID=13

[Common sense, origin of life, etc.]

1) I have a problem with the "common sense" referred to above, which I will equate with "gut feeling". How can anyone ever differentiate his/her gut feeling or common sense from cultural conditioning?

2) Creationism? Cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria came out of the primordial goo (discussed below) and over thousands of years altered the Earth's air, expelling O2 as a waste product and making our environment capable of sustaining life.

Stromatolites (mounds of Cyanobacteria) still exist today:

A under water


B above water


C and were here 2.7 billion years ago (this one is a fossil)


This primordial goo was composed of viruses, eubacteria and eukaryotes. These could have come about via Fox's method-->
"In the 1970' s, Fox showed that by heating certain proteins, microspheres form spontaneously"


Even if Fox's experiment was an aberration, there are scientific possibilities for the origin of life. The statistical possibility that life exists in the Universe (given its size) is in favor of life somewhere. We achieved the self-aware kind.

http://webs.wichita.edu/mschneegurt/biol103/lecture02/eg101k.gif
http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/courses/EEB105/lectures/Origins_of_Life/origins.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanointro.html
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Life_on_Earth

(I just deleted a temper tantrum I was having, summarized best as: wtf? creationism? W!T!F!)

Edit: probability, possibility, whatever. Edit 2: misspelling

chauncey wrote:Hairs have been split, balls have collided in outer space, this discussion continues to polarize each side like one of this nature will do...

Because Christians keep equivocating, saying their ideas are just as valid as anyone else's, despite everyone else having evidence, history, mathematics, logic and biology on their side, and calling clear-cut distinctions "hair splitting." The world (apart from Christains) is in agreement about a lot of things. Christianity does separate itself from the world, and sees itself as better for it. This arrogance is one of the things non-christians chafe at.

First: Jesus was asked directly when on trial if he was the Son of God. He said yes.

I didn't see that. Please tell me where.

how could there be any other design except the one that exists, has existed, and will exist.

Because both ducks and bats fly, because both mammals and fish live in the ocean, because both moles and worms crawl through the earth, because platypuses and chickens and snakes lay eggs, etc. There are as many ways for life to fit into an environment as there are living things. That earth has such an abundance of different examples of animals and plants solving problems in different ways, it is obvious that there is more than one solution.

I think it's quite ridiculous to place a hierarchy on primitive cultures vs. post-industrialized "enlightened" cultures, just like it's ridiculous to say one style of music is better because it's more "advanced" than another. Evolution, methinks, has allowed "rational" thinkers to run wild with the idea that everything moves in one straight line and is advancing. Towards what, exactly? Playing computer chess in space? You find my faith astounding, I find yours equally so.

The fallacy in your question is that is mistakes evidence for intent. We can say (based on all the evidence) that life has progressed from something primitive to this, all around us now. The arrow of time goes in one direction, so we can see the path it leaves along the way. This implies nothing about the future. Your question implies that there was a reason for things to have gone the way they did, and there will be a reason for them to continue on their way. I don't see a need for such a reason, and I can't infer one from the evidence. This requires no faith, only a plain look at things as they are, rather than a wonder at why they might be. And the many, many evolutionary dead-end species are evidence that it isn't headed in one direction, but in all directions, and only the ones suitable to getting things here now have been successful. other epochs had different requirements, and so different dominant species.

I'm not here to trade insults. I think that redemption is something worth defending.

Redemption requires the presumption of damnation. To accept that I need to be redeemed, I would first have to accept that I am now damned. I don't accept that, and I think a large part of this disagreement stems from that. We don't believe we are damned, at the moment, and so your "redemption" is meaningless.

If you base your morality on your own perception, then what is the difference between your morality and Ted Bundy's?

Mine doesn't include raping and killing people, for a start. Ted Bundy's probably didn't either, in that he knew he was being immoral when he was doing it, and so our moral codes are not so different, nor different from yours, mine and Ted's. He acted in disharmony with his morals, just as all Christians do when they sin.

Who's cuisine reigns supreme? It just becomes relative to you. A little dash of this, a dash of that, voila! One person does their 9 to 5, the other person decides to blow up some buildings with a bunch of people in them.

So, the reason we need a God is so we don't have to choose between a ridiculous moral position and a sensible one? I don't get it.

Of course everyone's moral position is relative. Of course it is. Mennonites think buttons are immoral. To pretend that Christianity removes this quandary of perspective is absurd.

I took a step back from gazing into the void. Hatred and nihilism were leading me to dark places I no longer wanted to go. I turned to love and was redeemed through Christ. I really don't see anything irrational about that at all.

Okay, your life went to hell and you found a way out of it. Congratulations. My life isn't Hell. It's pretty good, actually. I believe this is a state of mind, rather than circumstances, because other people in my circumstances both: A) complain of being in Hell and B) are the richest goat-herder in their village. Since I am able to be content without a God, arguments that I need one are ineffective.

While we feel weird about some of the choices they make, in no way was I going to condemn them in the way those on this board are condemning belief in Christ!

We are condemning the behavior and rationale of the Church, mostly, and making fun of the logical and ethical absurdities of the Christian dogma and social positions. Many of us doing the criticizing actually appreciate the sentiments of the teachings of Jesus. He was a great man, I believe.

Life is not merely about conforming your surroundings to suit your selfish desires.

Why "mere?" Why "selfish?" Why do you presume these desires are mine? Why do you presume I try to make the surroundings conform to me?

ok, going to throw in my 10 cents here.

first up i am a total non-believer. i think that the notion of a god, ANY god is rediculous, and that is my opinion that isn't meant to offend anyone at all, but simply inform you all as to my religious beliefs.

i may just have missed this being mentioned, so if anyone else has posted about this the slap my wrists and call me paula, but what about the dead sea scrolls? the gnostic gospels? these are also storys/accounts of the life of jesus and his friends, but were never used in the bible. i mean, for heavans sake the vatican still denies the existance of some of these books.

if jesus really were to be the son of god, surely his words would have been included in the bible, but as we all know, only ACCOUNTS of what he said and did were. why is this, whrn in one of the gnostic gospels (thomas i think, or i may be wrong about the name...) jesus's words were dictated to the author as a guide to accepting god into your life.


i should point out that yes, i have seen stigmata and i have read the da vinci code, but no i am not making this point based on these intriging works of fiction, although they are based upon fact.


my reason for mentioning this is that accepting the bible in ANY way as being the truth (even for people that accept that some of it is utter nonsense) seems somewhat naieve. i mean, if the church purposely excuded the writings of people, (especialy the gospel of mary which i believe infers that jesus and her were partners) then how can you trust anything that is written within the bible's pages?


we know that (and i am referencing the da vinci code here, as i can't recall where the research dan brown used for this came from) the church spent a very long time convincing the world that women were inherently evil, creating the notion of "original sin". we know this because before the rise of christianity women were worshiped (in many senses), particularly regarding their ability to create life. this was destroyed by the church, and the church is all about men being the power. why does the catholic church still refuse to allow women to enter the priesthood? because of original sin, a MAN made idea, taken from a very very very old book.

i accept that there was a remarcable man around 2000 years ago named jesus. i believe that he did some good in the world and inspired others to do the same. but i cannot even begin to rationalise any belief that the bible is any more than a 2000 year old work of (mostly) fiction, with a little self help manual thrown in for good meassure.



again, no offence intended, just needed to throw in a little curve ball.

chauncey wrote:Evolution, methinks, has allowed "rational" thinkers to run wild with the idea that everything moves in one straight line and is advancing.

Oh no, evolution has been anything but a straight line. It storms forward in one direction but then that direction burns out (dinosaurs) and the little rodents on the ground that weren't that impressive start carrying the torch (mammals). The twists and turns evolution has taken are amazing to me.

Evolutionary changes also happen in bursts, not steadily.

No, I don't think we are "advancing". What strikes me is that as I read what my fellow men and women have written through time, themes of uncertainty, alienation, wonder, sexual attraction (rar), affection, pain, etc. always seem to be there, no matter what the century.

No God means anarchy and cannabilism? NO. No no no no. My responsibility is to my fellow men and women (and the world we live in). I do not need God to tell me what I need to do to live a moral life. At the end of days, if there is a God, we can sit down and talk about how I did or did not lead a good life.

Linus says it best. Lights, please.

If you believe in God, and especially if you believe in creationism, you need to recognize that that belief is nothing more or less than faith. You should not try to muster evidence to support your belief. You need to be comfortable with irrationality. I'm not criticizing your faith. ||| I admire faith greatly, especially in cases like yours, when it turns people against hate and nihilism, and towards love, which is truly the greatest thing.

Ditto. Salut, LVP!

Just don't tell me that the fossil is a fake, that cyanobacteria didn't change the atmosphere and that the earth is 6,500 years old.

Edit: changed "mammals to be" to "mammals".

uk_chris wrote:we know that (and i am referencing the da vinci code here, as i can't recall where the research dan brown used for this came from) the church spent a very long time convincing the world that women were inherently evil, creating the notion of "original sin". we know this because before the rise of christianity women were worshiped (in many senses), particularly regarding their ability to create life. this was destroyed by the church, and the church is all about men being the power. why does the catholic church still refuse to allow women to enter the priesthood? because of original sin, a MAN made idea, taken from a very very very old book.

yeah. i'm wondering if anybody here is a fan of Tom Robbins? in particular his novel, Skinny Legs and All, which kind of goes over the whole idea of the christian church destroying the worship of the female goddess...

andyk