Much of what you said is perfectly agreeable to me, and most Christians for that matter. I don't have an issue with Christianity, as a faith and a concept, by I, too, have a great deal of a problem for how it is practiced in many circles. The televangelist world is disgusting to me, as are the perverted priests, and the compound prisons some branches of religion choose as "the way".
I'm not the church-goer I wish I was, mostly because I don't like a minister over-preaching to me about things he does not truly know. So much we don't know, and perhaps aren't meant to know, and that it just not acceptable to many in the church.
I've thought a lot on the subject, and won't get into all that here. I believe in God, and I've accepted Jesus as his purest example and "way", but I readily admit that humans too often take those basic messages and run with them in political and social ways that totally loose the meaning behind the messages.
Last edited by Erod; 07-06-10 at 11:00 AM.
They lived before the widespread knowledge of evolution. The idea of a God is much more common idea, and plausible idea, since there were no other alternatives at the time to explain the complexity of life. They made decisions based on the knowledge available.
If you go back far enough I'm sure you can find great minds that believed in spontaneous generation, flat-earthers, people who think the sun revolves around the earth etc.
The point remains the same, they lived in ignorance of evolution due to the time in which they lived.
It's telling that you would twist my post though. It was very intellectually dishonest of you.
However, evolution as a theory is very, very sketchy at best when it comes to certain creatures morphing into entirely different creatures over time.
And in the end, whatever the scientific truth of it is, it does not have to conflict with the existence of a higher being. And I don't know how anyone can honestly not consider that a real possibility, unless you're hell-bent on poking a stick at "churchy" people that you don't agree with politically. (Not you necessarily, but in general).
I have observed this: some of the most testy, grouchy, condescending, and unsocial people I've met in life are atheists. They tend to be overly argumentative, petulant, crabby, and negative about darn near everything.
YouTube - Ken Miller on Apes and Humans
Mind you that Ken Miller is a brilliant scientist and a devout Catholic.I think even most atheists will agree that God can't be disproven. It's a possibility. I just believe a personal God that actually cares about us is an immensely unlikely possibility. We just don't know to be honest. No one really knows.
And in the end, whatever the scientific truth of it is, it does not have to conflict with the existence of a higher being. And I don't know how anyone can honestly not consider that a real possibility, unless you're hell-bent on poking a stick at "churchy" people that you don't agree with politically. (Not you necessarily, but in general).I've observed the same thing of many Christians. My mom used to waitress across the street from a church. She hated saturday mornings because the church goeers would come in a huge group, be rude, and leave no tips.I have observed this: some of the most testy, grouchy, condescending, and unsocial people I've met in life are atheists. They tend to be overly argumentative, petulant, crabby, and negative about darn near everything.
With all due respect, do you know any atheists in real life or have you just met them online? I know a few and they're not any different from anyone else as a whole.
If I were to group Republicans and conservatives and libertarians by some of the people on here with those labels next to their name then I would come to a rather dim conclusion of them also, but I know that most people are much bigger dicks online than in real life, myself included sometimes.
Here are some of the views from Paul Dirac and Stephen Hawking.
Stephen Hawking:I cannot understand why we idle discussing religion. If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination. It is quite understandable why primitive people, who were so much more exposed to the overpowering forces of nature than we are today, should have personified these forces in fear and trembling. But nowadays, when we understand so many natural processes, we have no need for such solutions. I can't for the life of me see how the postulate of an Almighty God helps us in any way. What I do see is that this assumption leads to such unproductive questions as why God allows so much misery and injustice, the exploitation of the poor by the rich and all the other horrors He might have prevented. If religion is still being taught, it is by no means because its ideas still convince us, but simply because some of us want to keep the lower classes quiet. Quiet people are much easier to govern than clamorous and dissatisfied ones. They are also much easier to exploit. Religion is a kind of opium that allows a nation to lull itself into wishful dreams and so forget the injustices that are being perpetrated against the people. Hence the close alliance between those two great political forces, the State and the Church. Both need the illusion that a kindly God rewards—in heaven if not on earth—all those who have not risen up against injustice, who have done their duty quietly and uncomplainingly. That is precisely why the honest assertion that God is a mere product of the human imagination is branded as the worst of all mortal sins.
I don't know what the majority of opinion on this matter is among scientists, but I'm guessing that it might be a middle of the road position.Religious views
Hawking takes an agnostic position on matters of religion. He has repeatedly used the word "God" (in metaphorical meanings) to illustrate points made in his books and public speeches. His ex-wife, Jane, however, said during their divorce proceedings that he was an atheist. Hawking has stated that he is "not religious in the normal sense" and he believes that "the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws." Hawking compared religion and science in 2010, saying: ""There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds
At a genetic level, we are 96 % the same as a chimp, who is not even directly in the same line of descent. If you actually put a human and chimp next to each other and compared physical similarities, you would again see remarkable numbers of those similarities, far more than differences.
Further, speciation simply is the process of enough change that the new species can no longer interbreed with the old. Looking at, for example, the insect class, you will see that there can be quite subtle differences in different species.
Evolution happens over a very long time SPACE.com -- Origin of Life on Earth: Where and when did life begin?. The first microbes date back 3.5 billion years, and multicell organisms 1 billion years ago. Over the long time period, in vastly different environments, there is plenty of time to account for the diversity of life.
One last comment: While you generalization about atheists is not accurate, there are enough of the people you refer to to know what you mean, and the loud ones(Dawkins for example) are obnoxious enough to make the rest of us look bad.
I do know that mitochondrial DNA was looked at and showed that it is highly likely that Homo Neandertalis and Homo sapiens are separate species (as opposed to the "same species" arguments made in the past), thus making them ourt "closest" known relative species.
If you mean closest living relative species, I'm pretty sure that Bonobos are less genetically diverse than Humans.
Again, not sure I follow. Neanderthals weren't very different from modern Humans in mentality and physicality. We know that they buried their dead with flowers and made musical instruments, and physically the biggest dsifference is that we are more gracile.Why are we so separate mentally and physically from all other species on earth? Species that share much greater physical and mental similarities to each other than we do to our closest relative.
We aren't more adaptable to our environment than other species are, we are simply more likely to adapt the environment to suit our needs. Clothing, houses, the use of fire, etc are examples of this adapting the environment.Why are we so much more adaptable to our environment than any other species?
As far as inherent adaptabilty goes, it's pretty hard to beat the common rat.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
For just one.
Albert Einstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So perhaps you should add the big-chip Einstein to the other side.. indeed add him to those "nasty, condescending" atheists.Religious views
The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein’s position on theological determinism, and whether or not he believed in God, or in a god. In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." In a 1954 letter, he wrote, "I do Not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.”
In a letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind, Einstein remarked, "The word God is for me Nothing more than the expression and product of human Weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty Childish."
Einstein had previously explored this belief, that man could not understand the nature of God, when he gave an interview to Time Magazine explaining:I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
Last edited by mbig; 07-06-10 at 05:04 PM.
I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.