attn bible bashers

[Reaktor4]

just wondering what excuses you all have for this:
A TWICE-TOLD TALE

Reader Michael Clear:

I was recently arguing with a co-worker about this. This person's brain is a sponge for right-wing and fundamentalist rhetoric. He is conversant in all the Creationist and Intelligent Design talking points but he had no response for what I said to him. My trump card in debates like this is always the same. I asked him, "Which creation story would you teach in schools if you had to choose?" His response was, "The one in the Bible." I said, "Yes, but which one?" He again replied, "The one in the Bible." I then got very sarcastic and said, "Gosh, are you saying you don't know that there are two distinctly different stories of the world's creation in the Bible? Have you ever even read the Bible? You presented yourself as such an expert on the subject!"

This got him, and every other Creationist I've ever said this to, to hum and haw and scratch their heads and deny that what I said was true. I don't blame people for not knowing this. I went to Bible classes from 1st to 6th grade and I didn't know until I read a book by Isaac Asimov called In the Beginning. Asimov was the first person to point out to me that the Book of Genesis has two distinctly different stories of the origins of the world. The first story consists of God creating the Earth and sky out of the darkness and the void that existed before, through nothing more than His divine will. He starts by the creation of light and, six days later in His final act, He creates humans. "Man and woman He created together."

The second story is less sophisticated and has more in common with other primitive myths. In that one, the Earth already exists though devoid of all life save for God. His first act is to fashion a clay statue in His image. By breathing into it, He miraculously grants it life and consciousness and names this first man, Adam. God then creates all the plant and animal life then takes one of Adam's ribs and creates from it a companion for Adam, a woman He names Eve.

Both stories have huge differences, the main one being that in one, man and woman are a final act of creation and it is specifically said they are created together. In the other, man comes first and then comes woman after everything else. They are definitely NOT created together. This is obvious when you read it, yet most of the planet (including me and most other believers, not only in Creationism, but Evolution as well) has missed it completely. The only real response I've ever gotten to this was when I was in basic training and one of my squad members, when I told him this, simply said over and over again, "I believe everything the Bible says." It was a mantra he repeated by rote and it was the only thing he could think of to say.

So, I wouldn't be surprised if most of your readers had no idea about any of this. I took Bible classes in my youth and those two tales were sort of glazed over into one story. We were taught that God created Adam and Eve during the six days and the contradictions were never mentioned, much less addressed. But, if you should find yourself in an argument with someone preaching Creationism or Intelligent Design, bring this up and watch the blank expression that forms on the face.

These two quite different accounts are to be found in Genesis I and Genesis II. What fascinates me is that only one of these accounts can be true, and the only other possibility is that perhaps neither one is true. And, if you’re curious, look up the two quite different accounts of Noah and The Flood, as well….
source: http://www.randi.org/jr/200509/091605church.html#6
well?

[Mr-Fusion]

I always just treated genesis as a metaphor for a much more complex and lengthy task.

Still can't rule out the possibility we were created by aliens....heh wouldn't that be a hilarious end to religion if it was true :farmer:

[clarky003]

bible classes, hmm lol seems so alien to me.

hmm, thats not going to stop creationist's believing in divine creation, nor will it stop evolutionist's smacking them about the head, but whats the big deal.. at the end of the day... whatever happened we are all a result of it. maybe in reality it was a combination of both. who knows... but yes the bible contradict's itself, reeking of ancient personal opinion. But then again science creates theories that do the same thing, and then become to some (alot of religious scientist's out there), a religion to uphold in itself.

So I say science and religion cant go hand in hand, one is a belief the other is based on a determinate, but still incomplete factual physical evidence, you can make educated guesses from the science.. you can make wild speculation from it aswell.. but at the end of the day we are always allowed to believe what we want.. If a defiante truth is what your after however which IMO is more important, then they all might aswell shut up and get back to work.

[Reaktor4]

but whats the big deal..
the big deal is that billions of people live their lives by what it says in this book, and this creationism crap is even being taught in science(!) classes to kids in america. didnt bush even say god told him to attack iraq or something? religion is evil and dangerous.

[kirovman]

Gah, I often find that religion is the easy way out option for people who don't want to learn. I'm not knocking theology or anything, I'm just talking about your average blind faith Joe who listens to the religious politicians.

And using religion as an excuse in politics is the sign of a regressive society. I don't mind that political leaders are religious. I do mind that they use this religion as a tool to sway the votes, or somehow justify their actions. At the end of the day, they are responsible, not god.

Angry Lawyer (below), I agree with that.

[Angry Lawyer]

religion is evil and dangerous.

Should read

religion is evil and dangerous in the hands of the stupid.

I believe in God, but I'm not a creationist, and I know that the Bible is more of a rough guide than a book of facts. I also believe in evolution, and the big bang.

Not everyone who believes in a higher power is backwards, you know.

-Angry Lawyer

[Mr Stabby]

I find when you point out one of the bibles many flaws, they just say "its there to test our faith".

[clarky003]

the big deal is that billions of people live their lives by what it says in this book, and this creationism crap is even being taught in science(!) classes to kids in america. didnt bush even say god told him to attack iraq or something? religion is evil and dangerous.

You know its okay aslong as it remains an element of belief, and not taught as if it where fact, and more importantly aslong as it doesnt impinge on the many institution's leading countries, oh woop's my bad.. that seems to of already happened :x .

[Solaris]

Angry lawyer, do you belive in a multi verse. And why do you belive in God when their is no evidence?

Hope you dont mind me asking :D

[riomhaire]

You know its okay aslong as it remains an element of belief, and not taught as if it where fact
In science class? Plus I believe in one state that ID and Evolution must be given equal time in class. How can you posssibly give them equal time? If you give the facts then evoltion will take much longer to teach fully. And if you point the holes in each theory ID wins by a mile. How can you give them equal time?

[Raeven0]

I actually gave a response to this very point somewhere. Let's see if I can find it.

[shuffling through web pages occurs]

Here. To understand it you'll have to pick up a copy of Genesis and peruse the specific terminology used for yourself.

Assuming Genesis was not spliced wrongly by ancient scholars, it seems to me that God forms the entirety of man in His mind on the sixth day before actually creating the body of man on the eighth. This idea would be consistent with the rest of the Bible, in which God is said to know us before we're even born (see Jeremiah 1:5)--implying that He creates us in His mind before forming us "of the dust of the ground" and breathing into our nostrils "the breath of life" (NKJV).

But then, I'm only a mere Christian, not a theology major.

[Solaris]

The bible was written by men.

Where did these men get there knowledge? They made it up.

[DeusExMachina]

Creationism and ID is only taught in religious schools I believe. We only learn Evolution in my science class.

[CptStern]

I remember both points from theology classes in highschool ..but they were always presented as different facets of the same story ......good find btw, have to remember to bring that up next time :thumbs:

[Stigmata]

And if you point the holes in each theory ID wins by a mile.You can't possibly be serious.

[Llama]

In science class? Plus I believe in one state that ID and Evolution must be given equal time in class. How can you posssibly give them equal time? If you give the facts then evoltion will take much longer to teach fully. And if you point the holes in each theory ID wins by a mile. How can you give them equal time?

Er...no.
If you actually beleive that ID is at all true, then you need your head checked up on.

Really:x

[Reaktor4]

In science class? Plus I believe in one state that ID and Evolution must be given equal time in class. How can you posssibly give them equal time? If you give the facts then evoltion will take much longer to teach fully. And if you point the holes in each theory ID wins by a mile. How can you give them equal time?
that post nearly made my brain implode with confusion.

[Kangy]

I'm agnostic. I can't probe it either way, and I know that any diety out there probably knows that too. I don't think any religion of today or the past has even come close to nailing down something as inconceivable as something like God. It's just too much to comprehend. I think religion has some fantastic points if wielded correctly. It can teach a young child morals, and I think it's still got some very good points in it that still work well today. Others not so well, but that's a sign of the times.

My real problem with ID is that those supporting it always seem to point to butterflies, hummingbirds or beautiful plants. The world isn't like that. None of them ever point to bird flu, mosquitos or parasites.

[Reaktor4]

It can teach a young child morals
anyone can teach anyone morals.... this idea that you need to be religious to be a good person, and i know thats not exactly what youre saying, is complete bullshit.

[Absinthe]

Religion isn't some exclusive source of moral lessons, personal fulfillment, or anything. Anything you get out of religion can be derived from another source, sans the unbased personal relationship you may feel with a deity.

And to whoever said ID has less holes than evolution... I don't know what to say.

[The Monkey]

Religion is the opium of the masses.

[Angry Lawyer]

Angry lawyer, do you belive in a multi verse. And why do you belive in God when their is no evidence?

Hope you dont mind me asking :D

Multiverse, as in multiple dimensions - yeah, string theory has basically set the grounding for it to be possible.

And as for believing in God - it's the fact that we can choose to believe that makes me feel he's there. The fact we can try to define what consciousness is. The way we can appreciate art. Compassion. Humour. Love. Creativity. The way we can try to define everything, and the way we can understand, and judge ourselves as cold, empty balls of souless matter.
I don't expect anyone else to believe in God, because we've been given the choice on what we believe in. To me, religion shouldn't really be about gathering together, pointing at a book and taking it as blind fact, while fearing God. It should be about finding your own relationship with God.
And anyways, believer or not, if I die and am proven wrong, it's not like I'm going to care, because I won't be able to.

-Angry Lawyer

[Kangy]

anyone can teach anyone morals.... this idea that you need to be religious to be a good person, and i know thats not exactly what youre saying, is complete bullshit.

Ha, there we go. I never said that, so you're just grabbing for straws that were never there. Not everyone teaches their child the same way. It's a blank page, effectively, and the parent has to fill it. Of course I don't think that religious education is required to teach a child morals, but I damned well think that it is a useful tool in teaching a child morals.

I think completely disregarding all religious texts, associated culture and philosophical thinking that goes with religion is as equally stupid as believing God created the Earth.

Teaching a child messages using religion is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[riomhaire]

You can't possibly be serious.
Sorry. I should have phrased that better. I meant that when teaching these 2 if you started pointing out the holes in each theory then it would take ID a hell of a lot longer to teach than Evolution.

[Reaktor4]

Ha, there we go. I never said that, so you're just grabbing for straws that were never there.
I guess i didnt make myself clear enough the first time, sorry. Let me try again.
anyone can teach anyone morals.... this idea that you need to be religious to be a good person, and i know thats not exactly what youre saying, is complete bullshit.
Not everyone teaches their child the same way. It's a blank page, effectively, and the parent has to fill it. Of course I don't think that religious education is required to teach a child morals, but I damned well think that it is a useful tool in teaching a child morals.
The difference between teaching your child about how to be a good person with morals/forgiveness etc, and teaching them the same thing under the guise of religion is that with religion the reason for doing it is so you dont burn in hell when you die, rather than doing it purely because its actually the right thing to do. And the downside with adding religion is that youre filling your kids head with what amounts to lies, oh and the small matter of science and critical, rational, independant thought going straight out of the window.
Your turn.

[Absinthe]

Gotta agree with Reaktor on this one. Religion is in no way required as a means to an end. If you can't teach your kid that murder and rape is wrong because they're sick and depraved acts that harm other people, but instead need to rely on some mystical figure and the threat of Hell, then you're filling your kid's head with nonsense and a shoddy base for morality.

[Kangy]

I guess i didnt make myself clear enough the first time, sorry. Let me try again.


The difference between teaching your child about how to be a good person with morals/forgiveness etc, and teaching them the same thing under the guise of religion is that with religion the reason for doing it is so you dont burn in hell when you die, rather than doing it purely because its actually the right thing to do. And the downside with adding religion is that youre filling your kids head with what amounts to lies, oh and the small matter of science and critical, rational, independant thought going straight out of the window.
Your turn.

My turn? Fantastic.

I think you've got an incredibly ignorant view of religion if you think that it's teaching just that. Seriously, you seem to be grouping everything religious with "Conservative Christianity", and I think that's pretty showing of your ability to comprehend the affects of religion on a child.

I'd trust any child that I would raise would be able to at some point think in it's childhood, and question me about how anyone could possibly nail the concept of God down if he's so incredibly huge. I never even said what religion I'd raise my child in.

[Reaktor4]

then we will have to disagree. but just for silly old me, can you spell out exactly why religion is a 'useful tool' bearing in mind my and absinths last couple of posts, and why that outweighs the quite obvious and massive downsides? maybe ill finally see the light.
oh and im still waiting for all the religious people to answer the first post. only really got one answer and id like some actual quotes to back up the in gods mind thing since i dont have a bible.

[Kangy]

That's exactly the thing. The downsides are entirely created by the way you teach it. Aesop's Fables can teach important lessons, but you don't have to believe they actually happened like that, do you? As long as you're not saying "this is the absoloute and complete truth" while pointing to the bible, I really see very little difference.

[Tr0n]

Opinions are like assholes...everyone's got one. :D

Who says there isn't a god?Hmmm? Why attack christianty only?Why not Islam, hinduism, and buddhism?

See, I'm much like I stern...I myself use to be a baptist christian (remember I'm from the south), but later on in my life I turned away from religion and became more spiritual. In a sense I did find god/fate/surpreme being...how? Through knowledge of how the world is, will be, and who I am.

Enlightenment doesn't come from a book...it comes from the heart and mind. So what says whose god is right or whose is wrong...or whose is better?

[Reaktor4]

That's exactly the thing. The downsides are entirely created by the way you teach it. Aesop's Fables can teach important lessons, but you don't have to believe they actually happened like that, do you? As long as you're not saying "this is the absoloute and complete truth" while pointing to the bible, I really see very little difference.
but thats exactly what believers in the bible do do.
and these little stupid stories with morals dont teach kids anything. kids laugh at them ffs.

[Absinthe]

Who says there isn't a god?Hmmm? Why attack christianty only?Why not Islam, hinduism, and buddhism?

Well, Buddhism doesn't really belong there, as buddhists can be atheists.

I have issue with the underlying tenets of theism in general. If we get into specifics on faiths, I don't know enough about Islam or Hinduism to comment on them.

[Kangy]

but thats exactly what believers in the bible do do.
and these little stupid stories with morals dont teach kids anything. kids laugh at them ffs.

No, you're grouping the silent majority with the vocal minority, there. And I don't know about you, but that just says to me that those kids are stupid and weren't actually listening :)

[Raeven0]

I heart Jesus.

But how is that at all related to politics? Don't you people want separation of church and state? Great way to go about it, posting religion in a politics forum.

[Angry Lawyer]

Jesus is f***ing metal. 'Nuff said.

-Angry Lawyer

[Stigmata]

But how is that at all related to politics? Don't you people want separation of church and state? Great way to go about it, posting religion in a politics forum.Separation of church and state. The fact that the word "state" is there means it's directly related to, or essentially is part of, politics.

To me, religion shouldn't really be about gathering together, pointing at a book and taking it as blind fact, while fearing God. It should be about finding your own relationship with God.That's how I feel religion should be practiced, and how I would go about it if I were at all religious.

[Raziaar]

you are a judgmental little shit.

i only judge people on what they say, i dont take a look at someones photo and call them a nerd or whatever in a miserable attempt to make myself feel better unlike this twat.
now, go and jump off a cliff you annoying ****

[quote=Reaktor4]but thats exactly what believers in the bible do do.
and these little stupid stories with morals dont teach kids anything. kids laugh at them ffs.

Non Judgemental? lol. In this thread you're kinda judging all religious people, my man.

<waits for the swear ridden, hate filled response that is always evident of a Reaktor4 post>

[Reaktor4]

Non Judgemental? lol. In this thread you're kinda judging all religious people, my man.
ha. this coming from mr death to all drug users. quote me saying i am non judgmental.
notice i didnt say all religious people i said those who believe the bible, and forgive me if im wrong, i havnt read the bible, but doesnt it say its the word of god? so if you believe what the bible says, and it says its the word of god how can you disbelieve parts of it? how can god be wrong?
<waits for the swear ridden, hate filled response that is always evident of a Reaktor4 post>
:rolleyes:

[DeusExMachina]

Theism is bullshit. Atheism is bullshit.

ftw.

[Absinthe]

Theism is bullshit. Atheism is bullshit.

ftw.

No.

sixchar

[DeusExMachina]

wtf no ftw? /cry.

But in all seriousness, Theism is bullshit. A God would not operate on a human level like so many religions percieve them as. They are supposed to be a supreme entity of benelovent power. None of this "Heaven and Hell." They don't reward you for believing in them or punish you for not. Its ridiculous the trash in the Bible/Koran/Torah/etc. And then people even believe all of it to be true? Get some education. Stop letting a book think for you. Start thinking logically. Don't immediately assume the universe is so complex. Search for meaning.

Atheism is bullshit. Explain to me how you can truly prove God doesn't exist? Oh? Logic right? Just because you can't see it, it doesn't exist. Right, right. So true, so true. No, just because you can't see it and a few books make Gods to seem like fairy tales does not mean something isn't out there. Or perhaps something was there before and now has left? Or maybe the universe always has and always will (or will one day collapse on itself). You don't know. Get some education. Stop thinking logically. Start thinking on a more universal level, spiritual level. Don't immediately assume the universe is so simple as that everything was a coincidence. Search for meaning.


/two cents.

[Absinthe]

Atheism is bullshit. Explain to me how you can truly prove God doesn't exist? Oh? Logic right? Just because you can't see it, it doesn't exist. Right, right. So true, so true. No, just because you can't see it and a few books make Gods to seem like fairy tales does not mean something isn't out there. Or perhaps something was there before and now has left? Or maybe the universe always has and always will (or will one day collapse on itself). You don't know. Get some education. Stop thinking logically. Start thinking on a more universal level, spiritual level. Don't immediately assume the universe is so simple as that everything was a coincidence. Search for meaning.

You have no idea what atheism is.

[Raeven0]

You have no idea what atheism is.

He seems also to have a pathetic perception of theism. :)

[Teta_Bonita]

Religion is the opium of the masses.
-Karl Marx, co-founder of communism and a good friend of Nikoli Lenin.

IRT to thread author
*aheh* *opens bible*
First of all, ya there are gonna be "incosistencies" in the bible, here's why:
The Bible was first written in Ancient Hebrew (or Greek), then translated to Modern Hebew, then translated to Greek, then translated to Italian or Byzantiam or something, then translated to Latin, then translated to Ye Olde English, then translated to Thine Middle English, then translated to Modern Enlish over a period of about 4,000 to 2,000 years depending on the book. This particular book you're quoting from (Genisis) is the oldest one in the Bible. If that's not a good enough excuse, bite me. :rolling:

Second, there are not two versions of the Creation stories in the Bible.
In the Bible there are seven "days" of creation. Man was created on the sixth day:
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
That's from Genesis Chapter 1, Wich is part of the "first creation story".
Basically, it's saying that God made man in His likeness by making him more intelligent than the rest of earth's animals; and man and women were created on the sixth day.
Here are the verses Mr. Randi is reffering to in the "second creation story":
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
This "second story of creation" is actually just expanding on the sixth day of creation. In a nutshel, it's saying that when God had made the earth (and the rest of the universe), and not "shrub or plant of the field" had sprung up (plant "of the field" meaning tillabe, edable plants such as wheat or corn) (as in all plants were wild), God made man out of the "dust of the ground" (matter?). A few verses later, it says that God thought Adam was lonely, and so he sent all the animals he had made to Adam so he could choose one for a companion. Strangly enough, Adam didnt find sheep attractive, so he's like "God, your animals suck" or something to that extent. So as a punishment, God made woman. :P (maybe that's not excactly how it goes, but you get the idea). Anyway, that's how it is. Read it yourself if you wan't to. Nowhere does it say anything about a planet "devoid of all life except God". The "Second story of creation" is the sixth day of creation.

Now, I know to most of you this isn't going to make a one tiny dent in any of your beliefs. Your probably thinking of some holes in my explanation right now. Hell, you'll probably find one. I know how you probably think "man, those Christians are just so... obtuse! Look how they blindly follow the Bible! Look how stubborn they are!" Well, did you ever think that mayber you're the blind follower? That you're the stubborn one? You blindly follow the grand theory evolution and the big bang, theres just as much "proof" to that as there is to the Bible (no-one alive today witnessed the beggining of the human race :upstare: ) You blindly and stubbornly believe that the Bible is a bunch of "childrens stories", that there is no God and that all Christians are "ignorant". While the Bible, a "bunch of childrens stories", has influenced kings, nations, and philanthopists through-out human history. While you argue that there is no God when your not even be sure how the universe started. Who wrote the laws of physics? While you say that we are ignorant, you forget about Isaac Newton, Louis Pasture, Samuel Morse, Robert Boyle, Lord Kelvin, and millions of other brilliant minds. Sure, George Bush is dumb, but so is Ozzy Ozborne! :E
Now everyone stop bashing Christianity when you don't even know what it is.:flame:

[Jintor]

Religion: An excuse.

...the only possible divine power there is is a malevolant one.

{This is so coming back to haunt me later}

[Raeven0]

Pearls before swine~

[CptStern]

You blindly follow the grand theory evolution and the big bang, theres just as much "proof" to that as there is to the Bible

no, absolutely not ..evolution (micro) is an observable fact ..there's nothing in the bible that withstands even the most superficial of scrutiny

[Teta_Bonita]

no, absolutely not ..evolution (micro) is an observable fact ..there's nothing in the bible that withstands even the most superficial of scrutiny
Ya, I know micro evlolution is true, I was talking about the "grand theory" of evolution. Ya know, the whole "first we were little meat pods in a stew, then a gazzillion years later it grew legs, then 2 gazzillion years later in turned into a monkey-human, etc." In fact, you have to believe in microevolution if you wan't to believe in some parts of the Bible; Like Noahs' Ark, for example- there's no way a gazzillion [I like that word :p] species of animals could fit into a 3 football sized ark. But if it were just the core genuses of animals [like instead of bringing wolves, poodles, and collies he just brought "dogs"] its actually plausible without being a complete miracle. :)

[CptStern]

Ya, I know micro evlolution is true, I was talking about the "grand theory" of evolution. Ya know, the whole "first we were little meat pods in a stew, then a gazzillion years later it grew legs, then 2 gazzillion years later in turned into a monkey-human, etc." In fact, you have to believe in microevolution if you wan't to believe in some parts of the Bible; Like Noahs' Ark, for example- there's no way a gazzillion [I like that word :p] species of animals could fit into a 3 football sized ark. But if it were just the core genuses of animals [like instead of bringing wolves, poodles, and collies he just brought "dogs"] its actually plausible without being a complete miracle. :)


oh come on ...please dont bring up silly little stories of god's wrath to prove something that is physically impossible. Micro biology alone could not account for the multitude of species that are present today had the starting point been only a few thousand years

[The Monkey]

-Karl Marx, co-founder of communism and a good friend of Nikoli Lenin.
Marx died when Lenin was 13, and I don't think they ever met, so "good friend" is a bit exaggerated, don't you think?

[kirovman]

Communism just replaces the old opiate with the new opiate "The bright new future"

[Solaris]

I <3 communism

[Teta_Bonita]

Marx died when Lenin was 13, and I don't think they ever met, so "good friend" is a bit exaggerated, don't you think?
Lenin is the other co-founder of communism. Sure, they weren't excaclty good friends, because like, they never met each other :E, but Lenin admired Marx and Marx "set up" Lenin.

[The Monkey]

Lenin is the other co-founder of communism. Sure, they weren't excaclty good friends, because like, they never met each other :E, but Lenin admired Marx and Marx "set up" Lenin.
Lenin brought communism from theory to reality. His goal was to build Soviet as Marx has written, but he died pretty soon. As Stalin came to power, Soviet turned to something very far from Marxism.

[DeusExMachina]

You have no idea what atheism is.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or higher power. What else does atheism incorporate?

Theism is the belief in a God or higher power. Yes, even though everyone views Theism as this definition, its still pathetic.

[Eg.]

Ya, I know micro evlolution is true, I was talking about the "grand theory" of evolution. Ya know, the whole "first we were little meat pods in a stew, then a gazzillion years later it grew legs, then 2 gazzillion years later in turned into a monkey-human, etc." In fact, you have to believe in microevolution if you wan't to believe in some parts of the Bible; Like Noahs' Ark, for example- there's no way a gazzillion [I like that word :p] species of animals could fit into a 3 football sized ark. But if it were just the core genuses of animals [like instead of bringing wolves, poodles, and collies he just brought "dogs"] its actually plausible without being a complete miracle. :)


oh god im agreeing with kirk, but...

So all of the animals Noah brought with him, the "stems" of the evolutionary tree, evolved into all modern forms of life, while humans didnt change at all?

[Solaris]

Lenin brought communism from theory to reality. His goal was to build Soviet as Marx has written, but he died pretty soon. As Stalin came to power, Soviet turned to something very far from Marxism.

IDD, thats why socilism must be an international movement.

[DeusExMachina]

Social Democracy might work.

[jabberwock95]

The real problem is close-minded people who refuse to be open to new ideas. Whether these people are scientific or religous is immaterial.

The Bible is a book. Like any other it was written by human beings. God did not call unto the secretaries of the land to come take dictation. The Bible is an interpretation by men of what they believed. Different interpretations maybe, the Bible is a guide, not a rule book.

Evolution vs. Creationism is a debate that could go on for millenia (it has already actually). Proof one way or another is very hard to come by. You would be surprised the amount of people who refuse to believe that evolution is still a theory.

Since you enjoy posing difficult questions to IDers (who doesn't?), heres one for you evolutionists:

If we evolved from monkeys (and monkeys evolved from something else, all the way back to the primordial soup), how come we have different numbers of chromosomes? As far as science has progressed, we know of no possible way for organisms to gain or lose chromosomes. So how did it come about?


I'm not particularly religous by the way, I just love a good argument. :E

[Teta_Bonita]

oh god im agreeing with kirk, but...

So all of the animals Noah brought with him, the "stems" of the evolutionary tree, evolved into all modern forms of life, while humans didnt change at all?
We have africans, caucasians, asians, the welch (like, whatever they are :upstare: ), latinos, native americans, eskimos (which may be similar to the native americans), koreans, and a bunch more that I can't think of off the top of my head. :)
Besides, I don't completely beilieve that story I made up per se, I was just speculating.... :rolleyes:

[DeusExMachina]

The real problem is close-minded people who refuse to be open to new ideas. Whether these people are scientific or religous is immaterial.

The Bible is a book. Like any other it was written by human beings. God did not call unto the secretaries of the land to come take dictation. The Bible is an interpretation by men of what they believed. Different interpretations maybe, the Bible is a guide, not a rule book.

Evolution vs. Creationism is a debate that could go on for millenia (it has already actually). Proof one way or another is very hard to come by. You would be surprised the amount of people who refuse to believe that evolution is still a theory.

Since you enjoy posing difficult questions to IDers (who doesn't?), heres one for you evolutionists:

If we evolved from monkeys (and monkeys evolved from something else, all the way back to the primordial soup), how come we have different numbers of chromosomes? As far as science has progressed, we know of no possible way for organisms to gain or lose chromosomes. So how did it come about?


I'm not particularly religous by the way, I just love a good argument. :E

Well there's your first mistake. We didn't evolve from monkeys.

[Murray_H]

So it's harder to believe evolution from single-celled organisms to complex beings such as humans over millions and millions of years (that is a very, very, very long time), but you can be prepared to believe a massive expansion in diversity over 4400 years (from here http://www.drdino.com) from the end of the flood to the present day?

[jabberwock95]

Well there's your first mistake. We didn't evolve from monkeys.
OK, replace the word 'monkeys' in the question with 'pre-human organisms'. That way I cant get critisised. :E

[Raeven0]

We have africans, caucasians, asians, the welch (like, whatever they are :upstare: ), latinos, native americans, eskimos (which may be similar to the native americans), koreans, and a bunch more that I can't think of off the top of my head. :)

Our lives grew shorter, too.

no, absolutely not ..evolution (micro) is an observable fact ..there's nothing in the bible that withstands even the most superficial of scrutiny

Elaborate. I read an article to that effect not long ago, but all of the points brought up were either 100% hot dogs or beyond my capacity to judge.

[Absinthe]

Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or higher power. What else does atheism incorporate?

Lack of belief is not the same as saying God doesn't exist. A God may very well exist, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't have any rational reason to believe in one. No moreso than in unicorns, witches, and alien Jello-O entities that wish to suck the marrow through our eyeballs.

Atheism doesn't say gods are non-existent. It doesn't try to disprove them. It is, as you said, an absence of belief. So to say that atheism is bullshit on some fundamental level is ignorant.

And why am I reading pea-brained posts arguing against evolution in any way? What is wrong with you people?

[Tr0n]

/me covers his eyes

:(

[DeusExMachina]

Lack of belief is not the same as saying God doesn't exist. A God may very well exist, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't have any rational reason to believe in one. No moreso than in unicorns, witches, and alien Jello-O entities that wish to suck the marrow through our eyeballs.

Atheism doesn't say gods are non-existent. It doesn't try to disprove them. It is, as you said, an absence of belief. So to say that atheism is bullshit on some fundamental level is ignorant.

And why am I reading pea-brained posts arguing against evolution in any way? What is wrong with you people?

So are you suggesting atheists are agnostic as well?

And the arguers are just misguided :(

[Absinthe]

So are you suggesting atheists are agnostic as well?

Agnosticism isn't some "third way". It's not comparable to theism and atheism. Agnosticism is the doctrine that one cannot obtain absolute truth and therefore nothing can even be 100% proven. This can apply to both theism and atheism. It's simply the admission of uncertainty.

People have cultivated this stupid myth of agnosticism somehow being above any theological debate. They've dressed it up as something it's not.

[DeusExMachina]

Agnosticism isn't some "third way". It's not comparable to theism and atheism. Agnosticism is the doctrine that one cannot obtain absolute truth and therefore nothing can even be 100% proven. This can apply to both theism and atheism. It's simply the admission of uncertainty.

People have cultivated this stupid myth of agnosticism somehow being above any theological debate. They've dressed it up as something it's not.

Yes, but if an atheist believes that the existence of a God is unknowable, but chooses to not believe because of lack of evidence, would he not be an agnostic-atheist? Or "weak/negative" atheism as the atheists want to call it these days.

[Jintor]

An aethiest does not believe in the non-existance of a god. An aethiest is convinced about the non-existance of a god. Belief and being convinced are entirely different.

Douglas Adams, natch. (Who saw himself as a radical athiest but apparently only in order to not be labled agnostic)

[Absinthe]

Yes, he would be an agnostic atheist. Weak atheism is defined as not believing in deities due to lack of evidence. In this respect, every atheist is a weak one. The idea that atheists can be split into two different categories (weak/strong) is a popular but fallacious concept. But I suppose it works in general conversation, as everybody knows what you'd be talking about.
On the other hand, you can also have an agnostic theist; somebody who can't claim certainty about a god's existence, but believes in it.

Really, most popular terminology today is based on misuse. :\

[DeusExMachina]

You wouldn't believe how many people think agnosticism and atheism are the same thing :\.

But your point is valid. gg.

[Absinthe]

People considered to be "strong atheists" are those that reject the notion of deities at all and argue that they absolutely do not exist.

Those people I find to be arrogant and guilty of the same reasoning flaws many theists have.

[Jintor]

Uh... i see no shred of evidence that god exists.

But i have no problems with other people believing what they choose to believe.

It's all down to choice, really.