What's with the hostility towards Christians?

[customstuff]

Basically look both ways before crossing the street.

Oooh. Deep, eh?

[devonin]

Religion -should- want to have something to do with science though. If religion is so completely sure of the correctness of its core beliefs, it should be ragging on scientists NON-STOP to keep going, keep testing, keep investigating, because if religion -is- correct, then EVENTUALLY properly applied science will arrive at the same conclusions.

Unless of course, you're going to claim that it is an absolute necessity that the core "truths" of your system can -never- actually be proven to be true, like it's part of the whole thing that we -must- be kept ignorant of certain things, just to test whether we'll actually leap-of-faith to something we have absolutely no evidence to support.

[zoogarama]

Devonin-

The thing that I have to say in response to that, is that the problem I have with the bible is that history is a whole, is so flawed in so many ways. And the thing is with the bible these stories, a lot of them, were only written after years and years of being passed down through the generations by word of mouth. Like one giant game of telephone I think that a lot of things did get distorted along the way so truth be told there aren't a lot of things in the bible that are entirely accurate.

On the flip side though, there are a lot of things that are true and that have been used by archeologists to locate buried towns and cities that have been lost to time. Using biblical accounts right along next to other accounts.

And when you say investigating more and more into things, what exactly do you have in mind when it comes to what they should investigate? I can barely think of a few things off the top of my head. =/

[norsegod666]

I used to be a devout Christian. I went to church every Sunday, prayed before bed, and even went to a private school. I was like that until i was in my sophomore year of high school when I was sitting in church actually listening to and interpreting the pastor's sermon. He was preaching about how God gave us humans free will. Not ten minutes later he was saying the God knew what you were going to do before you even decided you were going to do it. Now it might just be me but that sounds a little fishy. How can you have free will when someone/something knows what you are going to do even before you decide to do it? This was what made me rethink my religious views.

My belief on the validity of The Bible is solely based on the faith of Christians as a whole believing God is real and infallible. I have read the Bible. I found that, as several people have already said, it is a book of fairy tales. For example, take Samson. His immense strength came from his hair. Think about this for a minute, your strength comes from your hair. From a logical standpoint you will see this as ridiculous, while if you are a Christian you believe Samson was blessed with this strength by God.

I was debating on whether or not to bash the worst of the Christians, the Catholics. They break one of the Ten Commandments by just believing in Catholicism.

Islam. 'Nuff said.

Protestants are fine in my book as long as you dont try to force your religion on me. When you do I end up arguing and using your Bible against you, as I already have.

[devonin]

And when you say investigating more and more into things, what exactly do you have in mind when it comes to what they should investigate? I can barely think of a few things off the top of my head. =/

I mean the entirety of scientific endeavour that the very religious are often outright opposed to. If you truly are that confident in the validity of your belief, shoudln't the rigorous and thoughtful application of the scientific method eventually bear you out? You should be forcing science to progress, encouraging it, funding it, because if you -are- correct, eventually science will get there, and you can say AHA! PROOF!

The whole "but I don't -need- proof, I have faith" argument is fine. Then never object to science ever again, because if you don't need proof, why should you care whether anybody else needs or wants it, or wants to seek it? I'm pretty sure God gave us intelligence, and free will specifically so we would USE IT and actually exercise our will to ask questions, to seek answers and better understand the great gift God made of the world to us.

I was debating on whether or not to bash the worst of the Christians, the Catholics. They break one of the Ten Commandments by just believing in Catholicism.

Are you suggesting that by treating the holy trinity as being both one and three, they are having a god before God? Because I'm not sure you're applying that commandment quite appropriately in that case.

Islam. 'Nuff said.

One: no, not 'nuff said' you can give an explanation to support your statement, or you can not make the statement. Two: Be -very- careful if you elect to give that explanation, lest you get yourself into trouble.

Edit: As someone who was raised catholic, who spent 15 years in catholic school etc etc. I was nevertheless raised to believe that blind faith was morally repugnant and an offense to God. Blind faith is spitting in God's eye and saying "I don't need or want the gifts of intelligence and free will that you gave to me out of the goodness of your neverending love for us."

Why do you have the ability to think, to question, to learn, to comprehend, to understand, if you aren't supposed to use it? We're only supposed to use it some times? The other times it's a sin?

I'm no theologian as such, though I have a pretty strong background in logic, philosophy and religion, but from my understanding of God in the christian context, I'd very much like to think that if two people came before God in Heaven and one said "I questioned, Lord. I doubted, I refused to believe blindly, I demanded answers, I sought explanations, I tried to find proof, built upon sound reasoning, and in the end, I came to see that you existed, that you created everything, and that you are the one true God" and one said "I never doubted for a moment, Lord. I believed in you, unwavering, in the face of any objections, any evidence to even begin to suggest that you weren't as real and as present as I was taught by the priests in church, because I just KNEW that you were real, that you created everything, and were the one true God" that it is the former person who was the better christian, because they were both believers, but one came to believe through the application of the gifts God gave to Man to make him superior to the animals, and one ignored those gifts, and acted as a sheep and not a person.

[Irish Kitten]

Originally Posted by devonin

Are you suggesting that by treating the holy trinity as being both one and three, they are having a god before God? Because I'm not sure you're applying that commandment quite appropriately in that case.

I was referring to the Pope. Why would you need to use a man to be able to talk to God when He is present at all times?

One: no, not 'nuff said' you can give an explanation to support your statement, or you can not make the statement. Two: Be -very- careful if you elect to give that explanation, lest you get yourself into trouble.

I am biased against Islam just because of it being the base of most beliefs of terrorists in the Middle East. I probably should have clarified that initially.

I just realized I was on this account checking on something. Sorry to cause any confusion.

[zoogarama]

Devonin-

I can agree with you on that. One of the things I hate most about any person is when they're closed minded. I am a very logical thinker by nature and as such, it's gotten me into trouble when it comes to my faith. But at the same time I've done my best to work around these discreprencies and look at it in a way that makes both my religious views and my scientific views work.

It's a very hard thing to do but it's keeping me holding onto my faith by a thread, however small so yeah, I agree and I think a balance needs to be found between the two (Science and Faith).

I think one of my favorite views on the merging of science with religious beliefs is something I found in a Stephen Hawking book where he talks about the evolution vs. creation.

Personally I think they're both true when you consider this. If God really did create the earth then why couldn't he have also created time as well? So by that reasoning, if time was not in existence at a point during the creation of the world, who's to say that evolution did not take place? And who's to say that dinosaurs did walk the earth, became extinct, and then humans arrived on the scene years later when time began?

And I think it was norsegod that pointed out Hitlers faith. As true as that may be, I'd like to point out that Albert Einstein was also a religious man.

[devonin]

I was referring to the Pope. Why would you need to use a man to be able to talk to God when He is present at all times?

Catholics don't worship the Pope, thus they are not worshipping false idols, or having any God before God. So your objection isn't actually valid.

I am biased against Islam just because of it being the base of most beliefs of terrorists in the Middle East. I probably should have clarified that initially.

Muslim is to Islamic terrorist as Christian is to Member of the KKK

That's the bad apple fallacy. Just because a small segment of people with characteristic A are also B which is bad does not mean all A are B or that all A are bad. Some Germans were nazis, some Americans owned slaves, some women chop off their husband's penis and throw it out a window. That's a pretty specious reason to be biased against the whole group.

I think one of my favorite views on the merging of science with religious beliefs is something I found in a Stephen Hawking book where he talks about the evolution vs. creation.

Creationism and Evolution have fundamentally absolutely nothing to do with one another. Setting them up as a dichotomy is one of those silly drama-mongering things both sides like to do to get attention.

Creationism as a religious theory deals with the fundamentals of "How did the universe come to be?" and Evolution as a scientific theory deals with the fundamentals of "How did living organisms on the Earth develop over time?"

While one could argue that evolution is at odds with a -portion- of the creationist theory, evolution never said anything about the creation of the universe, or the creation of the earth, or whether light and darkness were created one after the other or at the same time.

(Put more simply: They are each dealing with fundamentally different things, it's not even apples and oranges so much as apples and nebulae)

Additionally: IMO the rational way to reconcile the overwhelming evidence for evolution with a theistic belief is "Evolution happened just as the Scientists suggest it did, via processes and rules set down by God at creation" not "Because God also created time, there's all sorts of 'void time' where this stuff could have happened'

[zoogarama]

Originally Posted by devonin

While one could argue that evolution is at odds with a -portion- of the creationist theory, evolution never said anything about the creation of the universe, or the creation of the earth, or whether light and darkness were created one after the other or at the same time.

No I know, and I was only trying to address that small portion just because from experience it's one of the most questioned things whenever I have this discussion with my athiest friends. (Second only to the if there is a god why is there so much pain and suffering in the world.)

Originally Posted by devonin

IMO the rational way to reconcile the overwhelming evidence for evolution with a theistic belief is "Evolution happened just as the Scientists suggest it did, via processes and rules set down by God at creation" not "Because God also created time, there's all sorts of 'void time' where this stuff could have happened'

Right which is how I view it happened. Once again I was just trying to address how it might have happened within a 'void time' as you put it.

[devonin]

Right which is how I view it happened. Once again I was just trying to address how it might have happened within a 'void time' as you put it.

If you accept things like evolution as occuring, regardless of the mechanism, why would you not also accept equally well-supported theories as to the age of the earth? More than long enough to account for everything involved. You only need "void time" if you want to insist that the earth is not as old as the evidence suggests it is.

[norsegod666]

Originally Posted by devonin

Catholics don't worship the Pope, thus they are not worshipping false idols, or having any God before God. So your objection isn't actually valid.

I must have misinterpreted the Protestant bias of the Catholic religion while I was in school. Either that or it got mixed up with something else floating around in my head. Either way thanks for the clarifications.

[qqwref]

Originally Posted by zoogarama

If God really did create the earth then why couldn't he have also created time as well? So by that reasoning, if time was not in existence at a point during the creation of the world, who's to say that evolution did not take place? And who's to say that dinosaurs did walk the earth, became extinct, and then humans arrived on the scene years later when time began?

I've found that the concept of time not existing is a really hard one to think about and deal with. If there is no time, there's no such thing as before, after, or even cause and effect! So evolution and extinction couldn't take place, because they both depend on something happening after something else (for example extinction requires that a species exists and then later doesn't).

If you believe the theory of the Big Bang, "before" the Big Bang there was simply no time and space. It's a really weird thing to contemplate - a situation where asking "when" or "where" is meaningless.

[Reach]

Creationism and Evolution have fundamentally absolutely nothing to do with one another. Setting them up as a dichotomy is one of those silly drama-mongering things both sides like to do to get attention.

Of course they do.

To be fair, there isn't a strict definition of what 'Creationism' is or what is meant by it. Though, generally speaking, by necessity Creationism dictates that life on Earth is deity driven, whereas evolution is nature/physics driven. The modern synthesis of Evolution does not anywhere contain mechanisms that are deity driven; rather, they're quite the opposite.

Also, the vast majority of Creationists, especially in North America, are religious and reference creation according to Genesis. This is obviously in direct conflict with Evolution.


I suppose you can argue that Evolutionary mechanisms were set into motion by God, which is where I think you would go with this. That leads to numerous logistical problems though. For example, why did God set Evolution into motion if he supposedly loves all of his children, when clearly things like mutation/genetic disorder etc are chance driven (Even if they aren't, you then have to explain why God births people with horrible genetic defects. You can, but you have to keep changing the definition of God).

"I questioned, Lord. I doubted, I refused to believe blindly, I demanded answers, I sought explanations, I tried to find proof, built upon sound reasoning, and in the end, I came to see that you existed, that you created everything, and that you are the one true God"

A problem I have with a strict interpretation of Christian theology is that, if you changed this statement to:

"I questioned, Lord. I doubted, I refused to believe blindly, I demanded answers, I sought explanations, I tried to find proof, built upon sound reasoning, and in the end, I came to see that you didn't exist, that you created nothing and were a mere cultural fabrication of humans...one of many"

Then you'd go to hell.


I know plenty of non religious people, but I don't see much hostility towards Christians. The majority of the hostility seems to arise against Christians that are already hostile towards others. For example, if you're going to ardently oppose gay marriage, of course gays are going to be relatively hostile.

[devonin]

Of course they do.

You can account for evolution within the context of creationism (God created the rules this process follows, and perhaps even guided towards ending up at humans) You can even account for creationism within the context of evolution in basically the same way. Thus while certain stricter interpretations of both creationism and evolution tend to exclude the possibility of the other, presenting them as irreconcilable opposites just doesn't hold water to me.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by devonin

You can account for evolution within the context of creationism (God created the rules this process follows, and perhaps even guided towards ending up at humans) You can even account for creationism within the context of evolution in basically the same way. Thus while certain stricter interpretations of both creationism and evolution tend to exclude the possibility of the other, presenting them as irreconcilable opposites just doesn't hold water to me.

They're not irreconcilable opposites, as I pointed out, though there are clearly major differences between the two regardless of how you define them. My problem was mostly with your statement that they have 'nothing to do with each other', because they are fundamentally related in the eyes of anyone that classifies themselves as a 'Creationist'. Your approach to this problem is a deistic one, so there is more or less a semantic issue because I don't disagree with what you're saying.

Your examples are essentially the only way you can pair them together, and it works, but there are logical problems associated with this if you extend it to religion (Not that you are, but let's face it, most Creationists are religious). Your deist approach works, but I don't know many people that take that stance.

The more common variant associated with evolution that you speak of is usually called Intelligent Design and not Creationism (Though ID is just rehashed Creationism), but even then many IDists don't believe in Evolution, etc. It's a semantics game yet again.

[flipsta_lombax]

Originally Posted by Squeek

They followed some guy who claimed he could hear God.

Do you follow people in New York who claim they can hear God?

I wasn't talking about the 12 disciples either. I'm talking about everyone in the Bible. They all hear God. God never teleports himself down to them to talk face to face. God talks through burning shubbery and things like that.

My point is simple. People today claiming to hear God? They're insane. That mother who stoned her two children to death because God told her to? We filed her as clinically insane. But two thousand years ago, those people are PROPHETS! They're doing God's work!

Lol, I don't even know where to start. First, I wouldn't follow "people" who claim they hear God, but I'd probably be curious enough to ask them what they heard. And that "some guy" is also God. His son, Jesus Christ, the right hand of the Father, etc etc.

Jesus is not a man. Because of the way he was brought out and lived his life, He is also God.

And if people claim to hear God, that's cool, I'd consider it a blessing. But if it comes to doing things such as stoning your kids, they probably thought it was God talking to them. There are other things that can be heard in your head, but it doesn't mean it came from a good source, if you get my drift.

[YaBoySM]

Originally Posted by flipsta_lombax

Jesus is not a man. Because of the way he was brought out and lived his life, He is also God.

This made me LOL. Because Jesus when he was on Earth he made a prayer (it's in the Bible, I can't remember where off the top of my head) towards God. So if Jesus was God why would he pray to himself? Jesus is actualy God's son

[NFD]

Who doesn't pray to themself.

[StringsnKeys]

dore, you fail. I think a lot of people look at religion the wrong way. Religion is ridiculous. Period. Does that mean there is no God. No. Personally, I believe that there may be something, far beyond anything we understand out there. perhaps, we will find it one day, and we will understand. Maybe there isn't. However, religion is a simply the link between humans, and whatever we think may be out there. There is no need to make up stories, there is no need to preach. There's no point in trying to prove to someone that there is or isn't a God, or that there are or aren't aliens. I'm with a lot of other people when I say that religion is just a form of mind control. However, the idea that we should be nice to each other, respect each other, not go out and kill each other. These are good principles. Shouldn't need a book to tell us that. The idea that there may be something else out there, sure. Take that, "something else", and put it into whatever form you want. Making a club, and telling everyone you have the answers when you're just as clueless as the rest of the world.....that......that is why people hate religion.

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Careful, here. Religion claims truth where science does not because of their respective fields. Religion can claim truth because it deals with God himself, or other supernatural places/beings/whathaveyou. God, being God, knows all and tells us what's up, and that's where the truth comes from; it's not from the mere fact that constructs are untestable.

Science doesn't claim truth because that's not what it does or is intended to do, not because it might be wrong. Science always knows it might be wrong and even loves being wrong, because disproving things is an integral part of the scientific method. It deals with evidence and the scientific method. Truth doesn't fit in anywhere in science's realm, and ignoring it is far from some base CYA excuse.

Of course science doesn't claim truth. It is preposterous to proclaim you know the truth because, as I said earlier in the thread, there are very few things that you can truly know. Here, let me make a list of them:

1. I exist.

That's it. Every other fact of life can be questioned in some way that provides a possibility of that fact being false. For example: the fact that there is a computer keyboard under my fingertips right now. Can I trust my sensory inputs to tell me that this is in fact true? People hallucinate all the time (note: this isn't necessarily a truth either), how am I to know that this keyboard is one highly advanced hallucination?

The point is, questioning beyond a point is impractical, hence belief beyond a reasonable doubt = knowledge. When we say we "know" something, we're actually saying, "This information has such a small chance of being false given my situation that I am going to assume it is true."

Science doesn't proclaim it has truth because it'd be nonsensical to do so. However, what science DOES do, is proclaim it has what is most likely to be true. That's what the scientific method is for - from observational evidence, to constantly weed out the false and increase the chance of having true information, forever and ever.

Religion has none of this. Religion skips over the observational evidence step, claims it has the truth you want, and provides absolutely no reason whatsoever, insisting instead that you ignore your logical thinking, turn off your brain.

The likelihood that this universe is a giant video game simulation in an arcade on a different plane, the likelihood that there is a blue alien living in my closet, and the likelihood that any religion in the world has it right are all equal, and all miniscule. To treat religion in a way that defies the human's natural psychological device of accruing knowledge is unintelligent and hinders the human race as a whole from progressing.