All about Religion. (Rights, wrongs, Theocracy, etc.)

[TheYak]

I would be more inclined to think that the "I'm right, you're wrong" viewpoint is not just limited to religion. In fact, I'd say it's a universally human concept.

Phrased poorly.  Apologies.  The essense of religion, as I was expressing it is beginning with a question of explanation.  Since it can't be proven, one person's opinion quickly dominates the other giving them power relinquished from unknowable, immaterial deities.   Aside from the varying myths and legends, many religions seem to have a core doctrine of, "We know the truth, others do not.  Ours is absolute."  I certainly shouldn't have lumped all religions into this as some are less imperialistic about it, if they've got that doctrine at all.

  Also, as mentioned, the right/wrong concept leads to improvements in sciences, ability to see different perspectives in debate, and is often expressed as matters of opinion or right v. wrong in the sense of determining who has the most evidence.  Religions tend to state that they are fundamental, universal truths without allowing for admission of opinion or omission of fact. 

  I may be wrong on account of having done no research or study on the subject, but I can't recall any scientists putting people to death for disagreeing with them.  I do recall several periods wherein religious persons killed, including the occasional heretical scientist.  I'm diverting too much into a science *versus* religion rambling when I actually just find it frustrating that it can't be science *and* religion for religious folks, since they're not mutually exclusive.

[Helm]

"Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive!"

Whereas a religion can say one thing about the beginning of the world, mankind and the apocryphal doctorine governing all that, and as the case IS, that religion's followers will reap the benefits of thousands of years' worth of continued scientific research, this doesn't mean the followers aknowledge any enduring, lasting truth about the nature of things can be found via analytical research and evidence-gathering, the tools of science. In fact, the analytical mode of thought is counter-intuitive for a religious person, who, regardless of specific creed, more-or-less agrees that 'reason' is not the way to approach the truth about mankind, life and the universe. Religion is doctorine, science is tool. The two do not operate on the same level.

A religious person says about science: "if you want a machine that can shave you faster, you go to science. If you want to save your immortal soul, you turn to religion." And I don't really disagree that much. Remember, I am completely agnostic and have absolutely no faith in gods. My modification is "if you want a machine that can shave you faster, you go to science. If you wish to understand the inner workings of the human, you're fucked." Science is able to map out large bodies of information about the thing it's researching, let's say the human brain, right? Eventually, we're going to gather very rounded information about neurological workings, and science will say 'we understand how everything works now' but my problem is this. If you show me a map of the world, I have not been in every place (even scarier, I have not been to every place AT ONCE, my sight cannot cover everything). I see lines on a piece of paper, I see symbols and meaning, but it's foreign to what amounts to gazing at the WHOLE OF THE WORLD, right? It's just a communicational impression. Likewise, if you show me a map to the brain, or indeed a map to a man's soul, this does not tell me what it is to be human, it tells me nothing about myself. What I see is... a communicational impression. Information is not the same as knowledge, and knowledge is not the same as experience. Science will never teach us experience via knowledge. It will always give space for new experience of course, but it will not illustrate, to the puny conscious self, the workings of the whole mechanism that is a human, that is humans in relation, that is the whole world in relation. It will draw us fancy maps, and with the information there will arise many practical uses that will make our lives safer, more fun, faster and more efficient, but it will not make us understand ourselves.

[TheYak]

   I'm going to turn upon and consume my own tail.  I would agree that the concepts in and of themselves are, in fact, completely exclusive.  However, within a social context - in a single person, for example - people can designate things given over to science and those towards religion. 

   What I was thinking about when I wrote that was how I seldom hear of Christians who support the theories of the Big Bang or evolution as being potential mechanisms of God's will.  Coming to that conclusion doesn't contradict things stated in the Bible, particularly if one reads the appropriate text as symbolic.  However, it's the intrusion of logic and experiment-based understanding into their ethereal realm that seems to make them reject the idea without consideration.  Even introducing the subject to my religious teachers brought gasps of indignation at the gall of even implying that their could be explanations to the magician's tricks. 

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

...I seldom hear of Christians who support the theories of the Big Bang or evolution as being potential mechanisms of God's will.

Hey, a lot of them do. They just aren't as loud as the ones who don't.

[Paper Carnival]

...I seldom hear of Christians who support the theories of the Big Bang or evolution as being potential mechanisms of God's will.

Hey, a lot of them do. They just aren't as loud as the ones who don't.

They are also way fewer in USA than in other countries, and if you find them there they're mostly slacky christians (correct me if I'm wrong)

[Grapefruitologist]

TheYak, you're absolutely right. Religions should emphasize evidence more.
Which is why I got into science, kind of-(see my username)... There is a program on TV called "The Creation Network"... which is really exactly what you're talking about. The Creation Network gives evidence for Christianity, most of the time they look at fossils, etc. You should really watch it. It's one of the best science shows I've seen, as they give facts instead of just theories, like most shows on the Science channel.
It's on a channel called "Angel", I think, or maybe it's Sky Angel. There's another show similiar to it, as well, called "Creation in the 21st Century", that on the TBN channel. Both I found very interesting, especially when they started talking about microscopic cellular stuff that was way over my head.
Anyway, watch it-it's interesting, no matter what you believe.
Also-any one who kills somebody because the victim was not a christian is certainly not a Christian, it goes against the entire teaching of the New Testament.
The catholics did this many years ago, but the catholics also believing in worshipping saints, which would be considered idolatry.

And-I know Christians who believe in the Big Bang/Evolution theory. My cousin does. I don't know why he does, because when I debated with him about it, he didn't do a very good job of explaining.
I, myself, don't believe in the Big Bang or Evolution theory, because
1. The Bible says God created everything in a certain way that doesn't agree with Evolution
and
2. Recent scientific evidence goes against the theory of Evolution. It's not as known as most evidence, for some reason, but that's why you have to watch the above mentioned shows.

[big brother]

Ok, first of all-my opinion is that, in a country, for everything to be completely fair, you should have the same punishments for the same crimes. For example... kill a dog, go to jail, kill an unborn baby, and you should get the same punishment.

Uniform punishments? Read this book, or at least the notes on it before you set your belief in stone.

As far as theistic evolution goes, the Bible doesn't exactly describe the process God used when creating the universe. The theory inserts evolution within the "days" in the first chapter of Genesis. I put "days" in quotes because the chapter uses the term before the earth's revolution (day and night) was in motion. The theory claims that these days were actually periods of time (eras?), but days were used to better relate to the reader without overcomplicating. They say the point of the text is that God created the universe, not God created the universe from a mixture of oxygen, hydrogen, carbon... If it went into details, the emphasis might be misconstrued.   

[Becky]

2. Recent scientific evidence goes against the theory of Evolution. It's not as known as most evidence, for some reason, but that's why you have to watch the above mentioned shows.

What recent scientific evidence?

[LimpingFish]

Its also funny how Creationists will listen to scientific evidence AGAINST Evolution but not FOR Evolution. 

[Rolf]

A man a time that said me "that I think that is going to be a long long stay until we really to know that life is approximately."  I agree to its sights I am Religiion I am just to explain the things that we cannot explain.

[TheYak]

I put "days" in quotes because the chapter uses the term before the earth's revolution (day and night) was in motion. The theory claims that these days were actually periods of time (eras?), but days were used to better relate to the reader without overcomplicating.

Just adding that "days" might also be interpreted differently if one uses other biblical passages.  "To God, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day (sorry, from memory, but text is similar)". 
----
Additionally, the word "Word" was a quick translation of a concept of spirit and force, as in the following passage from one of the John books (again.. faulty memory): "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God, the same was in the beginning with God."  An interesting passage since it's the only other reference to the beginning (IIRC). 

In discussing science as a supplement to Biblical knowledge, I've yet to meet a Christian that was willing to even discuss it.  If they reject it as part of their theology, so be it, but it'd be nice if after listening to their plugs they'd hear me out.  *shrug*  Specifically, I don't see why evolution couldn't have been initiated by God, and these "days" being eras of change.  It doesn't compromise their theology, make their God any less amazing and lends the potential of more understanding of the natural world. 

Additionally, the "Word" segment could very well be describing energy in existence that was "without form and void" (i.e. energy, or possibly "dark" matter), that in the constant state of flux between energy and matter gave rise to the massive explosion that set the loop in motion.  Preposterous, I know, compared to miracles and magic, but the religion and the scientific theory aren't necessarily contradictory.

[MashPotato]

In discussing science as a supplement to Biblical knowledge, I've yet to meet a Christian that was willing to even discuss it.Ã,  If they reject it as part of their theology, so be it, but it'd be nice if after listening to their plugs they'd hear me out.Ã,  *shrug*Ã,  Specifically, I don't see why evolution couldn't have been initiated by God, and these "days" being eras of change.Ã,  It doesn't compromise their theology, make their God any less amazing and lends the potential of more understanding of the natural world.Ã, 

Well, you haven't met me, because that's along the lines of what I think ^_^.Ã, 

In my mind, evolution and creation can certainly co-exist, and I'm not the only one.Ã,  From the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself: "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimension of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man.Ã,  These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.Ã,  With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements... for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me""

[Grapefruitologist]

Something with little circles in the cellular structure of granite, or something like that. Also a few other discoveries. You should really watch the shows I mentioned, and you'll see what I mean.

LimpingFish-I have heard no reliable evidence for Evolution. Ã,  The ones they have found have been mostly disproven by now...
For example, the half lizard half bird... it was a young tropical bird that now lives in Africa. The birds lose their teeth when they get older, but when they are young, they have teeth and claws like lizards for escaping from predators.
And I don't like how you say ALL Creationists don't listen to both sides. I watch Paleoworld (a show giving the Evolutionary viewpoint on fossils and history) as well as Creation in the 21st Century and the Creation Network.
But in all the years I've been studying paleontology (as I want to be a paleontologist)... I have found no evidence for Evolution with a reliable source or even a simple explanation. I have talked to numerous paleontologists... all of which believe in the theory of Evolution, but not one of them can even come close to explaining why their theory has any proof for it, they only say that it is proven... And thus I have come to the conclusion that Creation has more evidence for it than Evolution.
Of all the books I have read, of all the shows I have seen and all the scientists I have questioned, I can not find just ONE bit of reliable evidence for Evolution. The fossil record is against it. Darwin himself said, "as we walk across our lawn, we should be stepping on missing links." (Or something like that, not the exact quote)
If the population in the world today is billions of people, then a few million years ago, when we were supposedly in the neanderthal stage, it must have been at least a few million. Those early people would have had to go through many generations to evolve into us today-millions of people multiplied by millions of years, that would mean that simply billions of fossils would be scattered throughout the Earth, all of which were half human half ape. And yet, we have only found about, what, 20? All of which were disproven in some way (many were found to have no evidence of human ancestry in them, and many without ape ancestry, some were hoaxes.)
Also note that the textbooks in schools are outdated and still give disproven information out as a fact. One of the books I have been reading from, "Exploring Creation with Physical Science", is one of the most recent books, from 2005.
Quote: "Before we go on, I want you to think about what you have learned for a moment. Earth just happens Ã, to have all the right quantities of those gases; and they just happen to be in the right place. If nearly any other gas than nitrogen or argon diluted the atmosphere, life could not exist. If If too much or too little oxygen was in the air, then life could not exist. Similarly, if too much or too little carbon dioxide were in the air, life on earth would not be possible. In addition, not only does life dpened on ozone, but it also depends on ozone being far away from the life that it is protecting. Beyond all of this, the gases int he air are all replenished when they are used, keeping their concentrations relatively constant over time!

Accidents do not produce the intricacy that we see in the air that we see around us. Only intelligent design does!Truly, anyone who understands the science of air must excersize an enormous amount of faith to believe that all of this occured by chance!

And the tests from the book:

Question: A very popular evolutionary theory of how life originated on the planet requires that, at one point, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. This theory, of course, assumes that the first life form did not breathe oxygen. Since there are organisms today that can exist without breathing oxygen, this is not as fantastic as it may first sound. Based on what you learned in this section, however, what serious objection can you raise against the theory that life originated on an earth with no oxygen in its air?
Answer: No oxygen means no ozone. With no ozone layer, no life form would be able to exist. Remember, the earth replenishes its ozone supply from its oxygen supply. With no oxygen, there will be no ozone.

Before you start saying that Creationists don't listen to evidence for Evolution, look at yourself, and please watch and read the books and shows I have mentioned. If you give me evidence for Evolution, I will listen. But I have yet to see any.
BTW-sorry it took so long for me to post this...

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

Its also funny how Creationists will listen to scientific evidence AGAINST Evolution but not FOR Evolution.Ã, 

Again, this isn't limited to just creationists and evolution. It isn't even limited to just religious people, for that matter.

[TheYak]

. . . Before you start saying that Creationists don't listen to evidence for Evolution, look at yourself, and please watch and read the books and shows I have mentioned. If you give me evidence for Evolution, I will listen. But I have yet to see any.
BTW-sorry it took so long for me to post this...

   There's no real refutation of a matter of faith.  Please understand, however, that to somebody who doesn't believe in the Christian god, these arguments for Intelligent Design do no more to validate the existence of God & Jesusman than they do Vishnu, Zeus, or any other deity (extraterrestrial like as well, for that matter). 

   Furthermore there's no "evidence" for creationism that I've heard of - only evidence against secular theories.  While the theory of evolution could be proven incorrect or at least founded upon incorrect assumptions, it's at least an attempt to explain our origins.  Creationism simply shakes its head and claims that it's too complicated for comprehension. 

  A magician saws a woman in half.  A scientist might have a horribly incorrect theory as to how this was accomplished, such as, "He had already prepared a surgically-separated woman for the demonstration." A more supernaturally-oriented person might exclaim that it's truly magic beyond any material explanation.  This doesn't make either any more right, but I'll side with the person who's at least attempting to understand it. 

  "I don't know how, exactly, but I know that guy's idea is wrong."  While this might be all that's needed for a religious person, having the issue of teaching anti-theory versus theory as a subject of debate seems preposterous to me.

  I'm hoping that the book you quoted goes into a good deal more depth than that.  If the proportions of gases were different than currently, the lifeforms would exist under those different criteria, and their more complex specimens would be saying the same thing, "It's a good thing our atmosphere is comprised of 31% oxygen, otherwise life as we know it wouldn't exist."  Considering that these "ideal" conditions occured only once (to our knowledge) out of the countless planets in countless solar systems, it seems redundant to claim a 1-in-100 billion chance of occurance when that's seemingly the case.  Of course, that's utterly disregarding evidence of not only water, but other chemical catalysts, found on Mars.   Statisticians in the creationism field like to cite the X out of Y probability of chance occurence when it's not only chance coming into play, it's the adaptation and manipulation influenced by life's existence.   

   Being told countless times that the Earth is anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 years old, despite any evidence or logic to the contrary, I wonder when the religious will stop trying to use secular tools to convince others of matters of belief.  Thus far, it's apparently not working too well.

[Becky]

If you can't give me a conclusive link to an actual scientific study, then I'm not going to sit here and be convinced of the fact that recent scientific studies have disproved evolution.  Telling me to watch television shows means little to me, as I cannot find the sources for their viewpoints.

If you've seen no evidence for evolution yourself, you must not be looking very hard.  I suggest you read Talk Origins, particularly the article on 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution for starters.  Then you may be interested in observed instances of speciation.

Furthermore, the argument "there aren't enough fossils"...do you even know what conditions must be present to form a fossil?  Try looking at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossils#Rarity_of_fossils.  The fact is, nowhere near all members of every species will be preserved, and not every species that comes into existance will be preserved either. 

Science got it wrong before?  Should we blindly continue believing the world to be flat despite the immense evidence that it is not, just because otherwise science will look bad? 

[Helm]

This is not really an argument but I do think it's worth a mention. It's interesting how only in America is there any talk about creationism and 'disproving' evolution and whatnot. Christians in the rest of the civilized world, orthodox or potestant or catholic or whatever, don't raise a big fuss about this. I wonder what makes american christians so bent on teaching me how the world started back 5,000 or so in school.

[PaulSC]

Accidents do not produce the intricacy that we see in the air that we see around us. Only intelligent design does!Truly, anyone who understands the science of air must excersize an enormous amount of faith to believe that all of this occured by chance!

It would certainly be an astonishing coincidence - were Earth the only planet in the universe. As it is, with untold millions and billions of planets out there, the event of such seemingly unlikely occurances becomes somewhat less impressive to me.

[abc123]

Just a note on the probability of evolution: if the movement of everything in the universe truly is random, then eventually, in infinite time: every possible configuration will occur at some point. While it might not be probable for human evolution to occur in a finite amount of time, when dealing with infinite time it is definite (of course, with certain premises...).

[TheYak]

You, sir, are bad for the soul.