Christian version of Darwin's Origin of Species

Hugh Freaking Dillon

wow, this is one helluva thread. A little history: I was raised in the United Church, which is quite a bit more liberal than Roman Catholicism. I was forced to go to church every sunday with my family, against my wishes, and told that this was "what you believe". When I was 12, my parents told me that it was now my choice to stay home or go to church. No contest. I stayed home. I got nothing out of church whatsoever. I went to sunday school, regular mass, nothing. It just didn't do it for me when I got old enough to think for myself. I think that Christianity is intelligent in the way that it brings people in: all of the teachings are presented in a child-like grandiose bed time story. Of course it gets kids interested. Kinda like the story of Santa Clause does.

I have no doubt that Jesus was a real person. Most theist and atheist historians alike will admit he was an actual person that existed 2000 years ago. Whether he could heal the sick with a touch of his hand is another story entirely.

The problem I have is this: we don't believe theories that were presented as basis for scientific fact even back just a few years, why do we insist on believing a story written by multiple people and changed countless times some 2000 years ago? To me, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What basis do we have for believing a single word written in the scriptures?

My wife believes in God. I do not.

The problem with this argument, is you can't argue faith versus scientific theory. It's like saying I believe that apple is red because I drive a Nissan. It just doesn't work. You can't even argue faiths against each other. It's an argument based in no fact at all, but just opinions and beliefs based on basically nothing but the upbringing of the individual. Until that person becomes old enough to research it themselves, but those same core religious values generally permiate throughout the person's life.

"On the sixth day, Man created God because he was so fucking depressed he needed something to cling to."

Hugh Freaking Dillon

one more thing: Mr Cameron lost all credibility in that video, when he said "why not give everyone both views, Darwin's view, and our view, the correct view". Fuck you, Kirk. Fuck you.

Calling atheists brainwashed???? WTF???

I absolutely don't mind having a frank, respectful discussion about religion, but when insult a group by saying they are brainwashed for believing what they believe, or that "let's let them see both our views, even though mine is the correct one", is insulting. It's arrogant. Ignorant.

Mike Seaver needs to go back to school.

Gern Blansten

Johnny Sitar wrote:

I have no doubt that Jesus was a real person. Most theist and atheist historians alike will admit he was an actual person that existed 2000 years ago. Whether he could heal the sick with a touch of his hand is another story entirely.

What sources are you using for this claim? I was under the impression that most atheists are skeptical of Jesus being an actual person because other writers during that time period in those areas he was supposed to be performing miracles never mentioned this man which seems very odd if he were actually a real person.

I have read that there are very few references to Jesus and those references are very sketchy as to whether they are referring to our historical Jesus or just some dude named Jesus

Gern Blansten

Johnny Sitar wrote:

one more thing: Mr Cameron lost all credibility in that video, when he said "why not give everyone both views, Darwin's view, and our view, the correct view". Fuck you, Kirk. Fuck you.

Calling atheists brainwashed???? WTF???

I absolutely don't mind having a frank, respectful discussion about religion, but when insult a group by saying they are brainwashed for believing what they believe, or that "let's let them see both our views, even though mine is the correct one", is insulting. It's arrogant. Ignorant.

Mike Seaver needs to go back to school.

agreed although I refer to christians as being brainwashed because in the truest sense of the word they really are...

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Gern Blansten wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

one more thing: Mr Cameron lost all credibility in that video, when he said "why not give everyone both views, Darwin's view, and our view, the correct view". Fuck you, Kirk. Fuck you.

Calling atheists brainwashed???? WTF???

I absolutely don't mind having a frank, respectful discussion about religion, but when insult a group by saying they are brainwashed for believing what they believe, or that "let's let them see both our views, even though mine is the correct one", is insulting. It's arrogant. Ignorant.

Mike Seaver needs to go back to school.

agreed although I refer to christians as being brainwashed because in the truest sense of the word they really are...

even though I'm agnostic, so obviously not Christian, I think saying that they are in fact brainwashed in the truest sense of the term is insulting to most intelligent Christians. I think there are sects of religion that do what we would call brainwashing, but I really don't think that Western Christianity can be called that. I'm sure there are a few isolated groups in the southern US that you could consider somewhat radical, but I think for the most part, most Christians think for themselves.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Gern Blansten wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

I have no doubt that Jesus was a real person. Most theist and atheist historians alike will admit he was an actual person that existed 2000 years ago. Whether he could heal the sick with a touch of his hand is another story entirely.

What sources are you using for this claim? I was under the impression that most atheists are skeptical of Jesus being an actual person because other writers during that time period in those areas he was supposed to be performing miracles never mentioned this man which seems very odd if he were actually a real person.

I have read that there are very few references to Jesus and those references are very sketchy as to whether they are referring to our historical Jesus or just some dude named Jesus

I think most atheists are skeptical as to his existence, but I said atheist HISTORIANS. I believe there is enough historical record to support this. I have watched many a documentary on this very subject, and it seems to be a general consensus that Jesus was a real person. But that's where the agreement on the subject generally ends between the two parties.

Gern Blansten

Johnny Sitar wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

I have no doubt that Jesus was a real person. Most theist and atheist historians alike will admit he was an actual person that existed 2000 years ago. Whether he could heal the sick with a touch of his hand is another story entirely.

What sources are you using for this claim? I was under the impression that most atheists are skeptical of Jesus being an actual person because other writers during that time period in those areas he was supposed to be performing miracles never mentioned this man which seems very odd if he were actually a real person.

I have read that there are very few references to Jesus and those references are very sketchy as to whether they are referring to our historical Jesus or just some dude named Jesus

I think most atheists are skeptical as to his existence, but I said atheist HISTORIANS. I believe there is enough historical record to support this. I have watched many a documentary on this very subject, and it seems to be a general consensus that Jesus was a real person. But that's where the agreement on the subject generally ends between the two parties.

right...I was referring to atheist historians/writers....my beliefs are based on at least one book I have read from a former minister who researched whether Jesus was real or not...his conclusion was basically what I mentioned...that it was possible that a guy named Jesus (son of Joseph) was alive at the time but that no miracles or resurrection occurred because all those stories/myths were copied from other fables before him

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Gern Blansten wrote:

right...I was referring to atheist historians/writers....my beliefs are based on at least one book I have read from a former minister who researched whether Jesus was real or not...his conclusion was basically what I mentioned...that it was possible that a guy named Jesus (son of Joseph) was alive at the time but that no miracles or resurrection occurred because all those stories/myths were copied from other fables before him

yes, I think we are on the same page here.

soulsinging

Gern Blansten wrote:

right...I was referring to atheist historians/writers....my beliefs are based on at least one book I have read from a former minister who researched whether Jesus was real or not...his conclusion was basically what I mentioned...that it was possible that a guy named Jesus (son of Joseph) was alive at the time but that no miracles or resurrection occurred because all those stories/myths were copied from other fables before him

Did anyone really think there might be physical historical evidence of miracles? If there was, this debate would've ended long ago. But I am under the impression there is significant historical evidence that some dude named Jesus lived and was executed around that time.

Cosmo

If Chriss Angel lived 2000 years ago...
would there be a religion based around him?

he still stands

Cosmo wrote:

If Chriss Angel lived 2000 years ago...
would there be a religion based around him?

I'm not a christian, but comparing Chris Angel and Christ is like comparing Al Sharpton and MLK.

soulsinging

he still stands wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

If Chriss Angel lived 2000 years ago...
would there be a religion based around him?

I'm not a christian, but comparing Chris Angel and Christ is like comparing Al Sharpton and MLK.

how so? the things chris angell can do would have made everyone then think he was performing miracles too.

he still stands

soulsinging wrote:

he still stands wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

If Chriss Angel lived 2000 years ago...
would there be a religion based around him?

I'm not a christian, but comparing Chris Angel and Christ is like comparing Al Sharpton and MLK.

how so? the things chris angell can do would have made everyone then think he was performing miracles too.

Christ was a great dude and was revolutionary. His message, IMO, I think is a really good one.

Chris Angel is a hack magician who needs to be kicked in the balls.

Cosmo

he still stands wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

If Chriss Angel lived 2000 years ago...
would there be a religion based around him?

I'm not a christian, but comparing Chris Angel and Christ is like comparing Al Sharpton and MLK.

...
You're taking this too personally. I didn't make the comparison... you did.
I simply stated that if Chriss Angel performed his 'magic' to the people of 2000 years ago... would they (the people) considered him a miracle worker? My guess is... probably so, based simply on the fact that the people of 2000 years ago didn't understand the natural world as it exists.
After the 2000 year old Chriss Angel died... would the people have elevated his statue to beyond what he actually did?
...
The thing about religion is this... they take a man, be him Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Marting Luther, John Smith or L.Ron Hubbard and elevate him to places beyond the realm of what he really was or what he might have been. That's why I can see a religion based around Chriss Angel... had he lived 2000 years ago.

meme

prfctlefts wrote:

All the legitimate alternatives should be presented in the classroom. For a professor to say you can't mention or discuss intelligent design is fascism.

It should be mentioned during religion class, not science.

soulsinging

meme wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

All the legitimate alternatives should be presented in the classroom. For a professor to say you can't mention or discuss intelligent design is fascism.

It should be mentioned during religion class, not science.

no kidding. not to mention creation "science" is not a legitimate alternative scientific theory.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

soulsinging wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

right...I was referring to atheist historians/writers....my beliefs are based on at least one book I have read from a former minister who researched whether Jesus was real or not...his conclusion was basically what I mentioned...that it was possible that a guy named Jesus (son of Joseph) was alive at the time but that no miracles or resurrection occurred because all those stories/myths were copied from other fables before him

Did anyone really think there might be physical historical evidence of miracles? If there was, this debate would've ended long ago. But I am under the impression there is significant historical evidence that some dude named Jesus lived and was executed around that time.

actually, many Christians would argue that point. Some of them believe that everything around us in itself is proof enough for them. The miracle of birth, creation, the Earth, the Sun, everything.

I must say, even being an atheist-leaning agnostic, it's a pretty compelling argument. It's hard to say either way. To say that this is a massive accident of unparallelled proportions is in itself almost as unbelievable as some all-powerful dude pulling all our strings. ALMOST.

But in the end, I go with what PROOF there is out there. And some book written 2000 years ago by people who didn't know which way was up, based entirely on their beliefs of their perception of their world around them isn't proof enough for me. So science wins.

soulsinging

Johnny Sitar wrote:

actually, many Christians would argue that point. Some of them believe that everything around us in itself is proof enough for them. The miracle of birth, creation, the Earth, the Sun, everything.

I must say, even being an atheist-leaning agnostic, it's a pretty compelling argument. It's hard to say either way. To say that this is a massive accident of unparallelled proportions is in itself almost as unbelievable as some all-powerful dude pulling all our strings. ALMOST.

But in the end, I go with what PROOF there is out there. And some book written 2000 years ago by people who didn't know which way was up, based entirely on their beliefs of their perception of their world around them isn't proof enough for me. So science wins.

but if the universe is infinite, it's a statistical certainty that this massive accident would have occurred at some point in its existence.

Cosmo

soulsinging wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

actually, many Christians would argue that point. Some of them believe that everything around us in itself is proof enough for them. The miracle of birth, creation, the Earth, the Sun, everything.

I must say, even being an atheist-leaning agnostic, it's a pretty compelling argument. It's hard to say either way. To say that this is a massive accident of unparallelled proportions is in itself almost as unbelievable as some all-powerful dude pulling all our strings. ALMOST.

But in the end, I go with what PROOF there is out there. And some book written 2000 years ago by people who didn't know which way was up, based entirely on their beliefs of their perception of their world around them isn't proof enough for me. So science wins.

but if the universe is infinite, it's a statistical certainty that this massive accident would have occurred at some point in its existence.

...
The other thing to consider is that this current situation wasn't alway here... and won't always be here.
The Earth has had its share of mass extinction. Whether it's the result of plate techtonics or celestial collision... it has occurred and will occur.
We just happen to live during a time when the circumstances were right. Had that asteroid not collided with us 65 million years ago... today would probably look quite different.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

of course everything has to have a beginning. AS WE KNOW IT. But can any of us even fathom the thought that the universe is everything? How can something be everything? How can something not be contained in something else? It boggles the mind, so I don't know, in the context of infiniteness, how we can be statistically certain about anything.

I really think that this was a matter of extreme accidental science. Not puppetmaster in the clouds. But I just don't get how EITHER SIDE can state with absolute certainty that the other side is absolutely wrong about the issue. There's no way to know.

At least not yet.

That's why it's called The Big Bang THEORY. And the THEORY of Evolution. As much as we know about evolution, it's still called the THEORY. Not LAW of Evolution. I don't doubt Evolution for one second. But I'm just saying, that there's a reason it's still called Theory.

catefrances

Johnny Sitar wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

I have no doubt that Jesus was a real person. Most theist and atheist historians alike will admit he was an actual person that existed 2000 years ago. Whether he could heal the sick with a touch of his hand is another story entirely.

What sources are you using for this claim? I was under the impression that most atheists are skeptical of Jesus being an actual person because other writers during that time period in those areas he was supposed to be performing miracles never mentioned this man which seems very odd if he were actually a real person.

I have read that there are very few references to Jesus and those references are very sketchy as to whether they are referring to our historical Jesus or just some dude named Jesus

I think most atheists are skeptical as to his existence, but I said atheist HISTORIANS. I believe there is enough historical record to support this. I have watched many a documentary on this very subject, and it seems to be a general consensus that Jesus was a real person. But that's where the agreement on the subject generally ends between the two parties.

im an atheist and ive never had reason to disbelieve jesus was an historical person. afterall theres usually some truth at the basis of myths.

haffajappa

the way i see it is,

greeks/romans worshipped gods, a lot being ones that explained forces or elements like the sun or thunder or the sea... we'd look back and see how their sun god turned out to be a giant ball of gas, and I think you can't rule out that in the future (near or far) another civilization isn't going to look back on our planet and and study our religions and beliefs for the beginning of the universe and say, boy were they wrong.

Random_Wookie

who knows one day pearl jam might be worshiped as gods!

I am with you on the fact that jesues was a person as someone stated before their is usually some fact(s) in a myth. But if you take a look for examples you will find other people who have done things (sometimes extrodonary) that have made a group of people believe they are gods.

the video posted at the start of this still bugs me

edit:

thats what bugged me about it, its the personal attack on darwin saying he hated women (was he not married), was a racist, and he belived in god (i think this may have been true to a point)

can any one also tell me what does hitler have to do with this topic?

or is this an attempt to get narrow minded people to hate the person so therefor they will hate the theory?

catefrances

Random_Wookie wrote:

who knows one day pearl jam might be worshiped as gods!

I am with you on the fact that jesues was a person as someone stated before their is usually some fact(s) in a myth. But if you take a look for examples you will find other people who have done things (sometimes extrodonary) that have made a group of people believe they are gods.

the video posted at the start of this still bugs me

edit:

thats what bugged me about it, its the personal attack on darwin saying he hated women (was he not married), was a racist, and he belived in god (i think this may have been true to a point)

can any one also tell me what does hitler have to do with this topic?

or is this an attempt to get narrow minded people to hate the person so therefor they will hate the theory?

a lot of men who hate women get married. gives them an avenue to more concisely direct their hatred.

Random_Wookie

catefrances wrote:

Random_Wookie wrote:

who knows one day pearl jam might be worshiped as gods!

I am with you on the fact that jesues was a person as someone stated before their is usually some fact(s) in a myth. But if you take a look for examples you will find other people who have done things (sometimes extrodonary) that have made a group of people believe they are gods.

the video posted at the start of this still bugs me

edit:

thats what bugged me about it, its the personal attack on darwin saying he hated women (was he not married), was a racist, and he belived in god (i think this may have been true to a point)

can any one also tell me what does hitler have to do with this topic?

or is this an attempt to get narrow minded people to hate the person so therefor they will hate the theory?

a lot of men who hate women get married. gives them an avenue to more concisely direct their hatred.

true but what does this have to do with the thoery of evolution?

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/what-the-hex-is-going-on-in-canberra-20091018-h2i5.html

catefrances

Random_Wookie wrote:

catefrances wrote:

Random_Wookie wrote:

who knows one day pearl jam might be worshiped as gods!

I am with you on the fact that jesues was a person as someone stated before their is usually some fact(s) in a myth. But if you take a look for examples you will find other people who have done things (sometimes extrodonary) that have made a group of people believe they are gods.

the video posted at the start of this still bugs me

edit:

thats what bugged me about it, its the personal attack on darwin saying he hated women (was he not married), was a racist, and he belived in god (i think this may have been true to a point)

can any one also tell me what does hitler have to do with this topic?

or is this an attempt to get narrow minded people to hate the person so therefor they will hate the theory?

a lot of men who hate women get married. gives them an avenue to more concisely direct their hatred.

true but what does this have to do with the thoery of evolution?

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/what-the-hex-is-going-on-in-canberra-20091018-h2i5.html

probably nothing. darwin could hate hairy apes for all i care.

Random_Wookie

catefrances wrote:

probably nothing. darwin could hate hairy apes for all i care.

but that makes up part of the 50 page introduction? does anyone have a copy?

catefrances

Random_Wookie wrote:

catefrances wrote:

probably nothing. darwin could hate hairy apes for all i care.

but that makes up part of the 50 page introduction? does anyone have a copy?

im surprised they didnt paint him as a dreaded jew. :shock:

i have been noticing lately across my city that jesus has become a cross denominational brand of sorts.


and then theres this:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/279801


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUsUIYuCwPo

Random_Wookie

http://assets.livingwaters.com/pdf/OriginofSpecies.pdf

i think i found it here if anyone is interested

catefrances

Random_Wookie wrote:

http://assets.livingwaters.com/pdf/OriginofSpecies.pdf

i think i found it here if anyone is interested

read???

a friend of mine told me to read a book the other day.. i just threw it in his face and said i know it all. I KNOW IT ALL!!