Back on topic
For many years I have had my doubts about religion , what really brought the absurdity of it all to me , was when the so called intelligent Sarah Palin said the earth was 6000 years old :rolleyes:
Yup , I used to like dipping it in the Ideal milk and juice :D
Result!
I was over in Cardiff with the footy (Palace) mid-October. I like the place. It was a bit hairy on a Saturday evening though, as we got the train. :eek:
Back on topic
For many years I have had my doubts about religion , what really brought the absurdity of it all to me , was when the so called intelligent Sarah Palin said the earth was 6000 years old :rolleyes:
Surely that should tell you the absurdity of Palin, or the republican party, or the born-again frothing at the mouth fundamentalist christian far right?
Don't equate religious belief with believing the earth is 6000 years old.
I really shouldn’t be in this thread, because I am tired of discussing all this. But I do want to make a few quick points. (Again!)
I’m so sick and tired of this myth that science and religion are in opposition to each other. It’s quite easy to both believe in God and believe scientific theories. Probably most of the greatest scientific innovations in history are from religious people.
I’m also sick of the myth that evolution is only a theory. Evolution is an observable fact. If evolution didn’t exist, everyone around the world would look more or less the same. Clearly, we evolve.
I’m also tired of explaining that not all Christians are Creationists, and that Creationism is only an interpretation of what the Bible says — it’s not actually written anywhere in the Bible that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
I really shouldn’t be in this thread, because I am tired of discussing all this.
DS:GD is as pointless as is riding a cycle machine in a gym.
You get *absolutely nowhere*, but the exercise does you good. This place keep you on your toes as it were, stops you becoming too set in your ways, because you're forced to defend. A bit like sparring I suppose.
Surely that should tell you the absurdity of Palin, or the republican party, or the born-again frothing at the mouth fundamentalist christian far right?
Don't equate religious belief with believing the earth is 6000 years old.
But aren't the likes of Sarah Palin the true Christians here? It seems like not equating them is the good ol' classic case of 'cherry-picking' that so many religious folk just love to do.
If you are not a creationist then you can't be Christian, it may not be fair and it may not be right, but that's what you signed up for. If you don't believe and/or agree with the Bible - then you've chosen the wrong faith.
But surely religion has evolved over the millenia in much the same way as species.
From primitive religions which worshipped forces in nature that they couldn't undertand but on which they were dependent up to the more modern religions of today.
And as our understanding of the way things are continues to develop, then so religions have to accept and adapt to this new knowledge, in the same way that species must adapt to changes in the environment if they are to survive.
And as science shows us more and more about the way the world is - so will the need for god to explain the gaps in our knowledge continue to diminish. Eventually of course, religion will become extinct - like the dinosaurs.
I think we need to go back to what I originally claimed.
I posited that a belief in Divine Intervention and Evolution are incompatible.
More specifically if one believes God intervenes in the material world/lives of creatures then one must accept that the mechanism of Natural Selection is broken viz they are not compatible.
I think I have shown (and I think you have agreed this bit) that intervention even in the example of solace (which you suggested) could impact on the chances of survival of the genes of the recipient of that intervention. I have also argued that the group that can benefit from this intervention is a specific one and has an advantage from the intervention not given to it by Natural Selection. So Gods intervention breaks one of the underlying tenants of evolution; natural selection; and hence the theory. I think that even with this example I have shown that a belief that God can intervene is incompatible with a belief that we evolved (or are still evolving) subject to the theory of natural selection.
Your defence, if I understand, which I don’t entirely, is three fold;
1 “the group may be specific but the mechanism for whether a member of that group happens to carry an advantageous trait is still random”.
I must admit I don’t really follow this one. The only advantage I am aware we have discussed is the one that results from the intervention not one already possessed by the group. Actually it might be more accurate to say the group had an inherent disadvantageous characteristic (propensity to suicide) that Gods intervention has nullified or mitigated.
If you mean the effect of solace is random then I disagree, it will not always result in a continuation of the subject’s genes but it will always tend to be beneficial to the individual and therefore increase their chances of procreation.
Sorry no doubt I have misunderstood something there.
2 God is part of the Environment.
A catchall I think. Obviously if God is ‘part of the environment’ then he is by definition not interfering in Evolution or natural selection but then neither can his acts also be divine intervention. The solace for the purposes of our debate must be a real part of the environment obviously or it would not be an intervention but if the origin of the intervention is part of the environment as well then it is not divine. Indeed if we accept this argument nothing God does could ever contradict any Natural Law let alone a theory of evolution.
3 God is not interfering with the natural selection mechanism because that is not his reason for intervening.
Well that argument has an implicit acceptance that he is interfering with Natural Selection. My argument was that a belief in Evolution and Divine intervention are incompatible.
Even if God in this instance intervenes with no regard for the consequences then his interventions are still breaking the mechanism. It is an argument that he is not indulging in Intelligent Design perhaps but it does not counter my claim. In any event I don’t think a deity can claim ignorance.
Anyway terrific debate, jesaya and although I am sure no one else is following it I am becoming anxious that I am actually attacking the open minded end of the religious spectrum that I have least issues with in real life.
Obviously we will never agree and perhaps I will have to just accept that I am not a dualist and I think perhaps you are.
Yes a good debate, and we are not going to agree I think. I'm not a dualist by the way... and my views on the nature of god actually tend away from interventionist. The trouble with some religions (not all) is a requirement to define god, as opposed to acceptance that we simply cannot begin to grasp what god might be like (the elephant behind the curtain thing).
But aren't the likes of Sarah Palin the true Christians here? It seems like not equating them is the good ol' classic case of 'cherry-picking' that so many religious folk just love to do.
If you are not a creationist then you can't be Christian, it may not be fair and it may not be right, but that's what you signed up for. If you don't believe and/or agree with the Bible - then you've chosen the wrong faith.
I don't see why a literal belief in the Bible means those who believe in it are 'proper Christians'. Did Jesus say that every story in the OT was to be believed as an actual historical record?
I don't see why a literal belief in the Bible means those who believe in it are 'proper Christians'. Did Jesus say that every story in the OT was to be believed as an actual historical record?
I don't see why a literal belief in the Bible means those who believe in it are 'proper Christians'. Did Jesus say that every story in the OT was to be believed as an actual historical record?
Well 'Creation' is a central tenant of Christianity so to not believe in it would surely mean you would be a cherry picker Christian, or not really a Christian.
It's like trying to claim you're a Christian and not believing in Jesus.
Well 'Creation' is a central tenant of Christianity so to not believe in it would surely mean you would be a cherry picker Christian, or not really a Christian.
It's like trying to claim you're a Christian and not believing in Jesus.
Creation perhaps, but not the literal biblical accounts of it.
And there are some people who describe themselves as christians who don't believe Jesus was actually God (or the son of god) - they follow Jesus's teachings... I don't think Jesus actually said he was god either IIRC.
Well 'Creation' is a central tenant of Christianity so to not believe in it would surely mean you would be a cherry picker Christian, or not really a Christian.
It's like trying to claim you're a Christian and not believing in Jesus.
So does that mean that if evolution is shown to be absolutely true - without a shadow of doubt - then you would throw out the whole of Christianity?
And there are some people who describe themselves as christians who don't believe Jesus was actually God (or the son of god) - they follow Jesus's teachings... I don't think Jesus actually said he was god either IIRC.
I think that it wasn't until 300and something AD that they decided that jesus was god.
Before that he was just another guy who got executed for stirring up political trouble against an occupying force (bit like the Taliban)
Comments
Yup , I used to like dipping it in the Ideal milk and juice
And what about all those Martian fishes that lived in those ancient oceans?
Did they have their own version of global warming?
For many years I have had my doubts about religion , what really brought the absurdity of it all to me , was when the so called intelligent Sarah Palin said the earth was 6000 years old :rolleyes:
A big, colourful tail is an indication to the peahen that the peacock is strong and healthy and capable of surviving, in spite of an unwieldy tail.
It's the peacock equivalent of an ostentatious display of wealth.
Catch up everyone!!!!
Then it is about time it was.
Behave!!!
Result!
I was over in Cardiff with the footy (Palace) mid-October. I like the place. It was a bit hairy on a Saturday evening though, as we got the train. :eek:
Surely that should tell you the absurdity of Palin, or the republican party, or the born-again frothing at the mouth fundamentalist christian far right?
Don't equate religious belief with believing the earth is 6000 years old.
I’m so sick and tired of this myth that science and religion are in opposition to each other. It’s quite easy to both believe in God and believe scientific theories. Probably most of the greatest scientific innovations in history are from religious people.
I’m also sick of the myth that evolution is only a theory. Evolution is an observable fact. If evolution didn’t exist, everyone around the world would look more or less the same. Clearly, we evolve.
I’m also tired of explaining that not all Christians are Creationists, and that Creationism is only an interpretation of what the Bible says — it’s not actually written anywhere in the Bible that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
DS:GD is as pointless as is riding a cycle machine in a gym.
You get *absolutely nowhere*, but the exercise does you good. This place keep you on your toes as it were, stops you becoming too set in your ways, because you're forced to defend. A bit like sparring I suppose.
But aren't the likes of Sarah Palin the true Christians here? It seems like not equating them is the good ol' classic case of 'cherry-picking' that so many religious folk just love to do.
If you are not a creationist then you can't be Christian, it may not be fair and it may not be right, but that's what you signed up for. If you don't believe and/or agree with the Bible - then you've chosen the wrong faith.
From primitive religions which worshipped forces in nature that they couldn't undertand but on which they were dependent up to the more modern religions of today.
And as our understanding of the way things are continues to develop, then so religions have to accept and adapt to this new knowledge, in the same way that species must adapt to changes in the environment if they are to survive.
And as science shows us more and more about the way the world is - so will the need for god to explain the gaps in our knowledge continue to diminish. Eventually of course, religion will become extinct - like the dinosaurs.
They hung around for 100s of millions of years and it allegedly took an asteroid to finish them off. :eek:
Yes a good debate, and we are not going to agree I think.
I don't see why a literal belief in the Bible means those who believe in it are 'proper Christians'. Did Jesus say that every story in the OT was to be believed as an actual historical record?
If that's true - then no-one has the right to say that god prefers jehovahs witnesses to buddists etc. Or turbans to shawls. or pork to lamb
Can you give me Chapter and verse please:)
or religious types to atheists
(which I believe to be a crucial point)
I completely agree
No SULLA, that's why I asked the question
Well 'Creation' is a central tenant of Christianity so to not believe in it would surely mean you would be a cherry picker Christian, or not really a Christian.
It's like trying to claim you're a Christian and not believing in Jesus.
Creation perhaps, but not the literal biblical accounts of it.
And there are some people who describe themselves as christians who don't believe Jesus was actually God (or the son of god) - they follow Jesus's teachings... I don't think Jesus actually said he was god either IIRC.
So does that mean that if evolution is shown to be absolutely true - without a shadow of doubt - then you would throw out the whole of Christianity?
I think that it wasn't until 300and something AD that they decided that jesus was god.
Before that he was just another guy who got executed for stirring up political trouble against an occupying force (bit like the Taliban)