RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Question for the Id supporters, Seriously< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,06:06   

I am curious to know how evolution promotes atheism, especially since god is not even mentioned in biology textbooks.

What evolution teaches is common descent (and thus that women did not originate from a man's rib cage) and the animal/plant world did not occur in one or even 6 days.

So while it is true that evolution (and plain common sense for that matter) conflicts with the Judeo-Christian creation myth but how does this promote the idea that no God exists at all?

And old fashioned common sense conflicts with many Bibical myths such as no human being is going to survive 3 days and 3 nights inside the belly of a whale.  Common sense and a marginal understanding of human biology indicates no human being is going to live for 300 or 700 years.  And the world is not 6,000 years old.   Is common sense the enemy of faith as well?

Is believing in the literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian creation myth neccessary for belief in God?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,07:20   

Personally, I think Creationism and I.D. promote atheism by pushing people away from religion. But that's just my opinion.

Henry

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,07:38   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 09 2006,12:06)
And old fashioned common sense conflicts with many Bibical myths such as no human being is going to survive 3 days and 3 nights inside the belly of a whale.  Common sense and a marginal understanding of human biology indicates no human being is going to live for 300 or 700 years.  And the world is not 6,000 years old.   Is common sense the enemy of faith as well?

Plus, when is the last time we saw a whale that was even capable of swallowing a human?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,08:32   

You might address the question, not just to ID supporters, but to the atheists who regularly insist in PT comments that evolution, or science in general, is inconsistent with theism.

It seems to me it all boils down to a matter of definitions. Certainly by some definitions of god - like the YECers' for instance - the two are incompatible. And, whereas continued study, accumulation of data, and open discussion generally tend toward consensus about definitions in science, no such process occurs in "theology".

Personally, I stay out of these discussions because I am an atheist, and I regard it as none of my business how theists reconcile faith and science. (Interesting, but none of my business.) And in a society where something like 90+% regard themselves as theists, my even stating my perspective on religion (in the context of efforts to promote understanding of evolution) is unhelpful.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,11:14   

the concept goes that since evolution does not require a supernatural explanation for the diversity and "specialness" of life, then it defacto removes god from the equation, thereby promoting atheism.

I personally prefer to think of all of science as leaving room for atheism, which ID/C of course, does not.

moreover, as the majority of practicing spiritualists (for want of a better term) will tell you, all of science leaves room for their beliefs as well.

just ask Wesley or Ken (if you're a christian).  

or Lenny (if you're a buddhist).


kinda off topic, but...

Quote
Plus, when is the last time we saw a whale that was even capable of swallowing a human?



huh?

i can think of at least 2 species "capable" of doing so right off the top of my head.

sperm whale (eat giant squid, which are quite a bit larger than a human)

killer whale (eat seals and sea lions; equivalent or larger than humans in size).

however, to my knowledge there has never been a confirmed report of any whale species actually eating a human.

Sperm whales have been documented to actually ram and bash ships and sink them (happened rarely during older whale hunting eras).

Killer whales have attacked humans (almost all recorded attacks happened in sea parks).

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,11:43   

I think toejam got it right....

Theists originally tolerated Science, because they probably thought that the Scientists would run out of things to study and admit that God did most of it.

Unfortunately, science has just encroached further and further into the traditional religious realm.  Without fancy mythologies, most religions begin to devolve.  If you could prove Jesus was not divine....that really shouldn't matter.  Chrisitianity is still a valid philosophical offshoot of Judaism.  The problem is that people are not philosophical Christians...they are Baptists, Lutherans, and Catholics.  They have attached a complex belief structure onto a good bit of nothing.

Science doesnt really attack Theism....Science attacks Christianity/Islam and perhaps to a lesser degree Judaism.

The philosophical religions of the east are perfectly safe even if science discredits their mythologies.  Their religions are only loosely based around those myths.  The reasoning and thought are the true meat of the religion.

Science does promote atheism, at least from the Theist perspective.  Science breeds skepticism.  The entire scientific endeavor is to be skeptical.  Skepticism often leads to atheism, since theism requires faith.  Indirectly, therefore, science promotes atheism.

I love the whole situation, modern people love the fruits of the scientific labor, but they resent the same practice that has given them the time to reflect.  If it wasnt for science, I doubt anyone would have the time to be anti-science.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,12:18   

I think Evolution is probably mostly correct and it is incompatible with certain religious texts.

As far as I am concerned, if a religious claim is made and it is incompatible with scientific evidence, then the claim from science has priority.

Personaly, I believe in God. But I do not think religious writings have superiority over evidence.

I am concerned about ID/Creationist methods. Religion is not science. If you need to teach both then teach them as seperate subjects, in a school not paid for by tax money.

  
Dean Morrison



Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,13:09   

Quote
i can think of at least 2 species "capable" of doing so right off the top of my head.

sperm whale (eat giant squid, which are quite a bit larger than a human)

killer whale (eat seals and sea lions; equivalent or larger than humans in size).


- but wouldn't a killer whale - well - chew you up a bit?

would make Jonah's survival all the more remarkable!

I suppose a Sperm whale might get you down whole though ?

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,14:07   

to throw in 2 cents about the whale and jonah

I was always told that it wasnt actually talking about a sea mammal...but rather a sea monster.

It would most likely be a shark....not that this makes the story any more believeable(the survival part)...but it may have been the animal the author was originally thinking of...since sharks dont always chew their food.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,14:20   

If I understand the Christian fundamentalist perspective at all, the presumption is that anything that fails to promote their religion, is actively engaged (by dint of that very failure) in disputing their religion. If you're not for us, you are against us.

No scientific theory ever has or ever can require anything supernatural. If something is observed, the mechanisms for which nobody has the slightest clue about, the best science can do is admit bone ignorance (and start investigating). If there ARE magical forces undetectable in principle, science must forever remain baffled.

Accordingly, religious convictions cannot contribute anything to our knowledge of the objective universe. We might layer them on anyway (evolution happens by known means *and God exists*) but we aren't adding any explanatory power, we're simply not discarding irrelevant (except for their feel-good characteristics) preferences.

And I think the Devout sense this. In science, their faith is irrelevant. *No matter what* they believe, it's irrelevant. Sure, it's allowed. So what?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2006,14:32   

well, i haven't seen any actual IDers respond to your question, so in the interest of off topic frivolity...

Quote
- but wouldn't a killer whale - well - chew you up a bit?



the conical teeth of whales are not for slicing off chunks or chewing, they are simply meant for grasping.  so yeah, they mostly swallow stuff whole (that doesn't break up just due to jaw pressure alone, or from violent head motions with the prey held firmly by the teeth, like a croc might do).

however, yeah 2 inch (killers) to 6 inch (sperm) teeth would have a tendency to inflict quite a bit of damage if they chomped directly on ya.

in thinking about it further, with the broad shoulders of a full grown human, I'm not absolutely sure a killer whale could pull it off.  even tho elephant seals and sea lions can be heavier and larger in bulk that humans, they are more hydrodynamic in shape, and so have a narrower shoulder width.

Quote

I suppose a Sperm whale might get you down whole though


most likely.  at 60' long, they probably have a big enough esophageal diameter to manage it, since they eat large prey.  It seems plausible that a sperm whale could have swallowed a human at some time, though i studied marine mammals pretty well, and have never seen any official record of this.

nice little overview of sperm whales:

http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=190

note however that large baleen whales, like blues, which can be 100' long, only have esophageal diameters of several inches.

here's a nice little addressal of the whole johah mythos thing:


http://www.probe.org/content/view/727/95/

edit:

oh my, and how could i forget the most famous incident with a whale, EVER:

http://www.perp.com/whale/

you really MUST see this to believe it.

i think most of those Oregonians must ha been IDiots.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,08:03   

Quote
well, i haven't seen any actual IDers respond to your question, so in the interest of off topic frivolity...

Frivolity, indeed. Let me be the first to answer your question. Now while individual Christians may believe in a Triune God Who uses stochastic mechanisms to create the universe, an ontological tension hums in the shadows of their mind. Darwinism presumes human rationality as the starting point for proper inquiry, with sensory evidence adjudicating the outcome. But suppose that human reason is inherently flawed, and misuses the senses to arrive at a false conclusion? No one could tell by reference to the methodological naturalism underwriting the enterprise. Furthermore, the methodology integrates itself into an individual's Weltanshauung, corrupting his frame of reference and driving him further from scripture. Over time, the method becomes the philosophy, and shoves out competing claims.  24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."

I hope this helps.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,09:25   

Quote
But suppose that human reason is inherently flawed, and misuses the senses to arrive at a false conclusion?


now why on earth should we ever assume that, since ALL evidence to date indicates that human reason has, in fact, done a great job of explaining observable phenomena?

I hope in saying this you are trying to typify the standard mistaken notions of creationists here?  Otherwise, it becomes just another rejection of methodoligical naturalism without even recognizing the fact that it has resulted in hypotheses that generate predictions that have been proven correct over and over and over again, #### near ad-infinitum, since the general adoption of the scientific method.

I'll take hard certainty over hand wringing and imaginary postulation any day.

why?  simple.  it works.

*sigh*

I still think the exploding whale is much more interesting.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,09:31   

What resource would we use to ascertain that "human reason is inherently flawed," other than...

human reason?

Seems like you're caught in the PoMo dilemma there Paley.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
J. G. Cox



Posts: 38
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,11:14   

I actually think it would be irrational not to concede that human reasoning is flawed (read: imperfect). However, considering that our conceptions of god/s are also built upon our reasoning, I fail to see how this applies to science-turned-worldview-from-epistemology any more than to religous views. How is "this book, which I have been told is inerrant, says god is like this, therefore I deduce that god must be like that" any less vulnerable to the imperfection of human reasoning than "explanations which incorporate only observed natural phenomena have always performed much better than explanations which have incorporated so-called supernatural phenomena, therefore I deduce that the supernatural does not exist" ?

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,13:02   

Human "everything" is most definately flawed.  

Unless we all wish to accept Descartes proof of God...through skepticism...we have to work with our imperfect worldview.

If our view of the world  is incorrect, and we have falsely assumed that it is absolutely correct, then we have commited a horrible crime against the truth.

If, however, we admit our flaws, and claim only empirical knowledge of the world...then we have committed no crime.  This is the common fallacy that science deals in absolutes, instead of acknowledging that science refuses all absolutes.

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2006,20:52   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Feb. 09 2006,12:0)
So while it is true that evolution (and plain common sense for that matter) conflicts with the Judeo-Christian creation myth but how does this promote the idea that no God exists at all?

And old fashioned common sense conflicts with many Bibical myths such as no human being is going to survive 3 days and 3 nights inside the belly of a whale.  Common sense and a marginal understanding of human biology indicates no human being is going to live for 300 or 700 years.  And the world is not 6,000 years old.   Is common sense the enemy of faith as well?

Is believing in the literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian creation myth neccessary for belief in God?

It's not evolution's clash with the Judeo-Christian creation myth that's the key problem, that is simply the result of the real issue which is, as they would put it, "believing the Bible".

Christian fundamentalists have been taught their whole lives that the Bible is "true", and not just true, but "literally true". So while they can usually explain away the odd inconvenient paragraph which talks about things like "four corners of the earth" etc, the creation myth is too big, too central to what happens in the rest of the Bible to be anything other than "real history".

Evolution will always be butting heads against this problem unless and until this central tenet of fundamentalist belief is overturned (or at least falls out of favour, like in most of Western Europe these days).

It's so hard to fathom sometimes. I know of any number of otherwise rational, logical, skeptical human beings who suddenly start spouting the most inane idiocies when the subject turns to anything remotely OT biblical. They just don't want to hear anything else.

I once talked to a fundamentalist co-worker (a really nice guy) about the potential for major natural disasters--caldera volcanos, huge underwater landslides, meteors, etc--only for him to start telling me how that all reminded him what happened at the time of Noah's Ark and the Global Flood. I mean, what are you supposed to say to something like that??

To these fundamentalists, if you prove to them that evolution (over millions of years) happened, you are disproving the Garden of Eden, the Fall of Man, Original Sin, the need for Salvation and ultimately, the necessity of Jesus's sacrifice on the Cross. It's as if these things are dominos standing on end next to each other. You push the first one over and the rest all come tumbling down after it.  This is what creationists believe is at stake for them - the very foundation of all their religious beliefs.

Fundamentalists think that theistic evolutionists are sell-outs. They simply cannot understand how you can be a fulfilled Christian if you believe that Genesis didn't actually happen the way the Bible says it did. (As an atheist, I have a certain sympathy for that viewpoint but obviously for different reasons!<!--emo&;). Many of these same people also believe that if  they woke up tomorrow morning having lost their belief in God, they would all be raping and pillaging by lunchtime.

The reason I'm talking about all this is, whether the IDist like it or not, the only reason ID is even getting a sniff of publicity is because of the over 50% of the population in the USA who are creationists. Without the fundamentalist Christians, ID is still lurking in the outer fringes of Art Bell's talk show and other kooky pseudoscience web sites. Many of the ardent IDists themselves may honestly believe that they are doing it for the good of science. That's fine. I can accept that. But they are fooling themselves if they don't understand that they are being used and manipulated by the Phillip Johnsons of this world whose motives are overwhelmingly religious.

So, while most activist IDists will agree that you can believe in God without being a "Bible believing" literalist, the vast majority of those who support them or would vote with them do not believe it is possible. To them, ID is simply a tool for defeating evolution, soon to be discarded for the "truth" of the Genesis Chapter One.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2006,04:43   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Feb. 10 2006,15:31)
What resource would we use to ascertain that "human reason is inherently flawed," other than...

human reason?

Well, there's the study of primate psychology...

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2006,07:56   

Quote
Well, there's the study of primate psychology...


Studied by humans....still flawed

Quote
he only reason ID is even getting a sniff of publicity is because of the over 50% of the population in the USA who are creationists.


I beg to differ.  I believe ID is getting publicity because of a very simple confusion.  ID(science) sounds a lot like ID(philosophy).  Many very intelligent Theists believe in ID(philosophy).  People who have not followed ID(science) in the news believe that they are the same thing.  They get really offended because they believe ID(philosophy) is a perfectly rational and intelligent view.  I have spoken to many, many, many people who originally supported ID(science), but once I explained the difference between ID(science) and ID(philosophy) they quickly changed their mind about the whole topic.

Quote
Fundamentalists think that theistic evolutionists are sell-outs. They simply cannot understand how you can be a fulfilled Christian if you believe that Genesis didn't actually happen the way the Bible says it did.


For a great example of this...notice how many times ID/creationists get offended/freaked out when the Catholic church comes out in support of Theistic Evolution.  It drives them insane.  It is a complete shock to them that the biggest denomination of Christianity does not share their worldview.

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2006,12:20   

Quote (PuckSR @ Feb. 11 2006,13:56)
I beg to differ.  I believe ID is getting publicity because of a very simple confusion.  ID(science) sounds a lot like ID(philosophy).  Many very intelligent Theists believe in ID(philosophy).  People who have not followed ID(science) in the news believe that they are the same thing.  They get really offended because they believe ID(philosophy) is a perfectly rational and intelligent view.  I have spoken to many, many, many people who originally supported ID(science), but once I explained the difference between ID(science) and ID(philosophy) they quickly changed their mind about the whole topic.

I understand your point, but I'm reasonably certain that ID would never have caused the damage and confusion it has without fundamentalists like Philip Johnson appealing to like-minded people.  The defeat of creationism in the courts left people like Johnson looking around for other strategies to defeat the "evils of Darwinism". He found ID. Without this unholy alliance (pun intended) ID would never gained the traction is has amongst the American public.

Ironically, since Dover, now that ID is having to backtrack from it's more strident positions, it seems to be losing support from the fundamentalists who are too impatient to wait while ID's new, less threatening stances, work slowly to undermine science education. They want God's word taught to children now, not sometime in the future.

Quote (PuckSR @ Feb. 11 2006,13:56)
For a great example of this...notice how many times ID/creationists get offended/freaked out when the Catholic church comes out in support of Theistic Evolution.  It drives them insane.  It is a complete shock to them that the biggest denomination of Christianity does not share their worldview.

Well, we all know that Catholics aren't real Christians.  :D

  
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2006,16:54   

updated on next post

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2006,17:07   

Quote
So while it is true that evolution (and plain common sense for that matter) conflicts with the Judeo-Christian creation myth but how does this promote the idea that no God exists at all?


It also conflicts with Hindu beliefs, thats another 900 million people or so.

Evolution is  not in conflict with all religious beliefs. For instance someone mentioned recent pronouncements from some bigshot catholics in support of evolution, also many protestant leaders have endorsed evolution. But the fact of the matter is that evolution is directly in contradiction to actual catholic or in fact any biblically based belief system or dogma. So it's not that evolution is copacetic with catholicism or christianity in their traditional forms, it's copacetic with some people who call themselves catholic or christian.

Evolution promotes a a basal ontological paradigm which is directly in contradiction to most religious doctrines of the world. Most religions teach that a God built all of the stuff in the universe living and not living. Evolution teaches that a God did not build life on earth. If life on earth is taught as being the product of purposeless blind chance instead of emotion laden eternal purpose, then in essence evolution is implying that there is no afterlife.

After all the essential component of religious belief is belief in an afterlife. That belief is the sine qua non of almost all religious faith. There are some religions which don't believe  in an afterlife i.e most forms of buddhism and some forms of judaism. But most religious people are motivated in their faith by the belief or hope of life after death in some kind of eternal joyful heavenly world.

Those religions teach that the soul or consciousness or atma lives on after the demise of the body. They believe that the soul is them, and that they are encased in a body made of matter. The different religions vary a bit on that point but the essential idea is that there is a difference between the body and the person in the body.

What evolution does is teach that life is a product of the body, a product of matter. Instead of life being a separate conscious entity which is created by a God, life instead becomes a product of blind forces of nature. God's role as the creator of souls, the creator of people's eternal "spiritual" essence or consciousness, is being called a lie by evolution.

Evolution teaches that God is at best a bystander of a planet left on it's own.

Biblical believers are not all the same but most more or less believe in the above. Hindus believe that there are billions of planets with humans and plants and animals on them, they believe the universe is vastly older then what big bang theorists speculate about. So to them all life found on earth is found all over the universe, and in the eternal heavenly planets as well. To them life found on earth is not new or specific to earth, nor is it's source natural conditions found on earth. Earth is one among countless planets in the mundane universe where we will find the same life forms, the same dramas of birth, disease, old age and death for humans in human society,the same everything as is found on earth. Then there are also the heavenly planets where we will also find many of the same life forms of humans, animals, plants etc, except without anything imperfect e.g no disease, no growing old, no death, nothing bad going on at all, simply the enjoyment of pleasures by perfected people on into eternity.

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2006,18:54   

Quote (Zardoz @ Feb. 11 2006,23:07)

Quote
But the fact of the matter is that evolution is directly in contradiction to actual catholic or in fact any biblically based belief system or dogma. So it's not that evolution is copacetic with catholicism or christianity in their traditional forms, it's copacetic with some people who call themselves catholic or christian.



So you're saying Bill Dembski is not really a christian. Interesting statement. Probably get you banned at Uncommon Pissant. But then again, what wouldn't.

Quote
I could make my peace with Darwinism if I had to, and I'm sufficiently theologically astute to do the fancy footwork, but it's the science itself that I don't think holds up, and that's what motivates me to critique Darwinism and develop intelligent design.

-Bill Dembski (quoted at http://www.antievolution.org/cs/ )

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2006,19:00   

yeah, he better go tell Bill he ain't no xian before bill teaches his next seminary class.

god forbid we wouldn't want no heathens teachin' no bible class!

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2006,04:31   

Quote
Then there are also the heavenly planets where we will also find many of the same life forms of humans, animals, plants etc, except without anything imperfect e.g no disease, no growing old, no death, nothing bad going on at all, simply the enjoyment of pleasures by perfected people on into eternity.
Do hindus believe that this will eventually happen on earth, if so hinduism and futuirism have more incommon than i would have guessed.

I think a creationist once said, "If there is no creation story then there is no origional sin, therefore no need for christ to come to earth". I dont claim to be an expert on the bible, but this seems fairly sensible to me. Evolution says that their was no adam and eve (see above), and that man is not created in the image of god, and was unplanned. This seems pretty incompatible with christianity, if im wrong could someone explain it to me.

Having said that i used to work with someone who did a degree in phylogenetics and was a creationist. She didnt belive in evolution in any form, but it formed the entire basis of her work, and didnt affect how well she worked at all. I think perhaps that is easier for scientists, especially biologists to reconcile evolution with faith, as it is easier to ignore philosophical and theological implications, and therefore seperate the two.

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2006,07:58   

Quote (sir_toejam @ Feb. 12 2006,01:00)
yeah, he better go tell Bill he ain't no xian before bill teaches his next seminary class.

god forbid we wouldn't want no heathens teachin' no bible class!

Well Bill does seem to be proud to call Hugh Hefner a good friend--not exactly sure how that goes down with his Southern Baptist employers.  But then Bill gotten away with a lot of other unchristian behaviour, so why would anyone expect him to be called to task on anything?

  
tacitus



Posts: 118
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2006,08:23   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Feb. 12 2006,10:31)
I think a creationist once said, "If there is no creation story then there is no origional sin, therefore no need for christ to come to earth". I dont claim to be an expert on the bible, but this seems fairly sensible to me. Evolution says that their was no adam and eve (see above), and that man is not created in the image of god, and was unplanned. This seems pretty incompatible with christianity, if im wrong could someone explain it to me.

Fundamentalists will claim that to be true. I can see why Biblical literalism is so appealing. You can end all sorts of awkward debates and arguments simply by saying "It's not my opinion--that's what the Bible says" (probably the third most infuriating comment a fundamentalist can say after "all atheists should be rapists" (i.e. no moral imperative) and "all atheists hate God").

It's a very simplistic belief and that's why it's so popular. The down side is that if you remove that one single belief, the complete foundation of their belief system comes crashing down. Evolution and other sciences directly challenge the Genesis account, that's why they fight so hard against it.

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Feb. 12 2006,10:31)
Having said that i used to work with someone who did a degree in phylogenetics and was a creationist. She didnt belive in evolution in any form, but it formed the entire basis of her work, and didnt affect how well she worked at all. I think perhaps that is easier for scientists, especially biologists to reconcile evolution with faith, as it is easier to ignore philosophical and theological implications, and therefore seperate the two.

That may be true, but perhaps there's a simpler explanation. Despite all the fundamentalist rhetoric and pronouncements on moral values, survey after survey shows that fundamentalists lead lives that are very little different than the rest of us. They cheat, steal, have affairs, watch pornography, divorce, donate to charity, etc. etc. at about the same rate as the general population. They may like the idea of moral absolutes believe that God gives them a better way, but in practice, it doesn't make a darn bit of difference in their daily lives.

  
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2006,12:05   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Feb. 12 2006,10:31)
Quote
Then there are also the heavenly planets where we will also find many of the same life forms of humans, animals, plants etc, except without anything imperfect e.g no disease, no growing old, no death, nothing bad going on at all, simply the enjoyment of pleasures by perfected people on into eternity.
Do hindus believe that this will eventually happen on earth, if so hinduism and futuirism have more incommon than i would have guessed.

I think a creationist once said, "If there is no creation story then there is no origional sin, therefore no need for christ to come to earth". I dont claim to be an expert on the bible, but this seems fairly sensible to me. Evolution says that their was no adam and eve (see above), and that man is not created in the image of god, and was unplanned. This seems pretty incompatible with christianity, if im wrong could someone explain it to me.

Having said that i used to work with someone who did a degree in phylogenetics and was a creationist. She didnt belive in evolution in any form, but it formed the entire basis of her work, and didnt affect how well she worked at all. I think perhaps that is easier for scientists, especially biologists to reconcile evolution with faith, as it is easier to ignore philosophical and theological implications, and therefore seperate the two.

Hindus do not believe that earth will ever become a "heavenly planet". Planets like earth are believed to go through 4 stages of time called yugas. We are presently in Kali Yuga which according to traditional hinduism started around 5000 years ago and will go for another 432,000 years. Kali Yuga is the last of the 4 ages in the cycle, after Kali Yuga the cycle starts again with Satya or Krita Yuga which will last around 1.7 million years, then Treta Yuga which is shorter, then Dwapara which is shorter still, then Kali yuga which is the shortest. There are many varied beliefs and interpretations for these ideas found within the diverse hindu theological landscape. But the accepted idea amongst all is that each Yuga is characterized by how spiritually, ethically and morally evolved society and humanity is in general. The highest or most evolved time is the Satya or Krita Yuga where humanity is in a golden age, people have much longer lives then today etc. The Yugas following Satya become less and less perfect until we reach Kali Yuga which is the lowest point in human existence and society for earth.

To say "hindus believe this or that" needs to be understood in the context of "most" hindus believe what I am writing, probably around 85% of hindus belong to the Vaishnava group of religions and these are their beliefs. The other major religions of Hinduism i.e Shaivism, Shaktism, and Advaita, have slightly different beliefs to very different beliefs on the following  topic of heavenly planets.

The "heavenly planets" are different then earth type planets. There are 2 categories of heavenly planets. The first type is where humans who by dint of their good karma on planets like earth are reincarnated on paradisical planets. They live extremely long lives of pleasurable pursuits without aging, but they do not remain there forever. They can gain good or bad karma there as well and take a lower birth or a higher birth still. The other "heaven" of hinduism i.e the real heaven, is called Vaikuntha.

Vaikuntha planets are eternal. That is where God lives and enjoys life and relationships with eternally perfected people. They are similar to earth in that there is vegetation, animals, human society etc. There is no chance of ever leaving Vaikuntha due to bad karma and taking birth in a lower sphere. Everyone is eternally youthful, life is nothing but pleasure, and it is lived in association with God who also has a human form. It is the ultimate goal of life to attain to life in Vaikuntha for most hindus. With there being trillions of people living there, you could ask how could God live and have relationships with all of those people? In hinduism it is taught that God takes on an unlimited number of human forms (male and female) in Vaikuntha so that he/she can be with everyone. There are also different types of Vaikuntha planets where different types of things are going on. It's a bit more complex but that's the basic run through.

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2006,03:36   

Quote (sir_toejam @ Feb. 09 2006,17:14)
Quote
Plus, when is the last time we saw a whale that was even capable of swallowing a human?



huh?

i can think of at least 2 species "capable" of doing so right off the top of my head.

sperm whale (eat giant squid, which are quite a bit larger than a human)

killer whale (eat seals and sea lions; equivalent or larger than humans in size).

however, to my knowledge there has never been a confirmed report of any whale species actually eating a human.

Sperm whales have been documented to actually ram and bash ships and sink them (happened rarely during older whale hunting eras).

Killer whales have attacked humans (almost all recorded attacks happened in sea parks).

Huh, try to be funny and see what happens?  I did not know about that.  Maybe I should have been more specific?  Like, what whale can swallow a human whole and not kill him?  Either way, my bad.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2006,11:05   

sorry, being a marine biologist, i simply knee jerk must correct errors in representations of sea creatures.

my apologies for stepping on your attempts at humor.

er, carry on.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2006,03:46   

Quote (sir_toejam @ Feb. 13 2006,17:05)
sorry, being a marine biologist, i simply knee jerk must correct errors in representations of sea creatures.

my apologies for stepping on your attempts at humor.

er, carry on.

No worries bro.  I'm glad to expanded my knowledge.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2006,06:56   

The notion that human beings are flawed is flawed.  Such a dim view of mankind is needless.  Human beings are perfect at being human beings.  No one does a better job of being a human being than a human being.  

Part of the nature of being a human being is our capacity to make good decisions and bad decisions.  We're fallible.  This does not make mankind "flawed" it makes him what he is, a human being.  Human beings are fallible, that does not make them flawed.  Dogs are fallible, do we describe dogs as being "flawed"?

Notions of "flawed" human beings are rooted in religious nonsense having to do with original sin, the fall of man, etc.  Ideas we need not perpetuate.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,12:37   

Quote
If I understand the Christian fundamentalist perspective at all, the presumption is that anything that fails to promote their religion, is actively engaged (by dint of that very failure) in disputing their religion. If you're not for us, you are against us.

No scientific theory ever has or ever can require anything supernatural. If something is observed, the mechanisms for which nobody has the slightest clue about, the best science can do is admit bone ignorance (and start investigating). If there ARE magical forces undetectable in principle, science must forever remain baffled.
And, don't you think that it would stand out? I mean, "yeah, there's this one thing. Over on Mt.Etna, the rocks roll uphill. We studied the heck out of it but nothing makes sense."


Quote
Most religions teach that a God built all of the stuff in the universe living and not living. Evolution teaches that a God did not build life on earth. If life on earth is taught as being the product of purposeless blind chance instead of emotion laden eternal purpose, then in essence evolution is implying that there is no afterlife.

And that, said john, is that (A.A. Milne)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2006,14:17   

Quote
Dogs are fallible, do we describe dogs as being "flawed"?


the following is totally pointless mental masturbation based on a nitpik of the choice used in the example given. :p


that's an interesting question from a philosophical standpoint.

since dogs (assuming you meant domestic?) are products of artificial selection, we could describe certain traits as "flaws", and often do in fact.  I seem to recall that exact word being used at a recent dog show...


If ID were correct, would we think the intelligent designer could recognize similar "flaws"?

I could image a "human show" on another planet somewhere where a "handler" (read: intelligent designer ala Behe) would be listing the flaws in the particular human specimen selected for show.

sounds like a plotline for a Futurama episode.

  
  33 replies since Feb. 09 2006,06:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]