4. It's just people who don't want to believe that there is a God and are trying desperately to prove it. And they can't.
Evolution is a theory. Not a fact.
somebody needs to go back to grade school science class! Yes, evolution is a theory. It makes predictions based on observations. Creationism doesn't meet that test. It can't. There are no experiments to be done to prove God exists. Therefore creationism has ZERO place in a science classroom. If you want to teach that crap, take it to philosophy, history or literature. The bible is an important part of history, at best, and a really lousy piece of fiction, at worst. But, please, keep that shit out of the science textbooks where it has no place.
You're getting tripped up by a curb one-inch high.
Believing in God is in no way a reason to not understand evolution.
I agree and I think this is what it comes down to, Kann. One may believe in a creator, as they see fit, since, science says nothing either for or against one. But, to me, the choice to believe evolution is not as easy. If you choose to disbelieve evolution, you choose to disbelieve in the scientific method, and the majority of the biological study done in the last century, even the most basic results that you can reproduce yourself, in front of your own eyes, with a jar of fruit flies. Evolution is a scientific process that is observed to occur. Many object to it because it seems to contradict the Biblical version of creation. But there is a problem: all the evidence we have points to evolution being true.
This site might have already been posted here, but here is a good link for the non-biologists to read up on evolution http://www.talkorigins.org/
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Our understanding of it may not be completely correct in every way, but most real debate in the actual scientific community at this point is related to how it occurs rather than whether it occurs.
I think this is a good point, SharonC and maybe where some of the confusion stems for a few. There have been various modifications to the theory of evolution, but most of the principles have remained intact, e.g., Darwin proposed natural selection, but he didn't have an understanding of how inheritance and the appearance of new traits work (i.e., genetics). Evolution, in of itself, is not in dispute, but there is plenty of debate about mechanisms. For example, Gould & Dawkins have different approaches. You'll find that some people propose that evolution is generally a uniform, gradual process, while others propose that much of evolution happens in relatively sudden spurts. Or, if you read the writings of Kauffman, he proposes that natural selection is overrated, and that some features of the genome can be explained by means of self-organization, in the absence of any kind of selective pressure.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I have to admit I did not read the whole text of the files above, but from the look of it, it seems evolution does not offer a daily common benefit, at least benefits know from the large public. A majority of people (this is an opinion I didn't do a survey on that) have misconceptions on evolution such as "only the strong survive" and "we descend from monkeys".
Wether these misconceptions are due to a long history of refusing and negating that theory (the monkey part is the thing for which evolutionnary adepts have always been criticized) or a lack of correctly teaching evolution in school I don't know.
Until there is correct and strong communication on viable applications due to evolution people will still view it as the strange idea that would give us monkeys for grandfathers.
This is kind of my point. It's not that understanding evolution doesn't have benefits, it's that because of their biases the general public remains (perhaps deliberately) unaware of them. That doesn't mean they aren't important benefits.
I think misconceptions come from both of these things you mentioned; refusal to accept evolutionary theory, and lack of correct instruction in school. Many, many science teachers have had minimal exposure to evolution, refuse to accept it, and because of that refusal don't bother to understand it. Those teachers pass that ignorance of evolution and all of the misconceptions that go with it on to their students.
I think this is a good point, SharonC and maybe where some of the confusion stems for a few. There have been various modifications to the theory of evolution, but most of the principles have remained intact, e.g., Darwin proposed natural selection, but he didn't have an understanding of how inheritance and the appearance of new traits work (i.e., genetics). Evolution, in of itself, is not in dispute, but there is plenty of debate about mechanisms. For example, Gould & Dawkins have different approaches. You'll find that some people propose that evolution is generally a uniform, gradual process, while others propose that much of evolution happens in relatively sudden spurts. Or, if you read the writings of Kauffman, he proposes that natural selection is overrated, and that some features of the genome can be explained by means of self-organization, in the absence of any kind of selective pressure.
Very true. And I think when the public sees debate over this sort of thing (which can get heated), they get the impression that scientists disagree on the occurrence of evolution, when in fact, that's not the case.
I don't believe in evolution for a few reasons:
Number one, according to evolution and the age of the earth, the Atlantic ocean should have completely consumed the entire earth by now.
Two: I cannot fathom a single cell can evolve in to the extremely complex brain we humans possess.
Three: If evolution were real (and having the history of the way people looked over 2,000 years ago) humans would have physically evolved by now.
Four: The earth cannot sustain itself for billions of years.
.
.
And more personal reasons:
1. It's a good excuse to avoid the truth.
2. If I come from a monkey, then life has lost all art and I don't want anything to do with it.
3. It makes no sense.
4. It's just people who don't want to believe that there is a God and are trying desperately to prove it. And they can't.
Evolution is a theory. Not a fact.
The teachings in the Bible coincide more with science than does evolution.
Now, I know a lot of you don't believe that there is a God. But please, instead of name-calling and stuff like that, just write a list of reasons why not to believe there is a God and how he couldn't have possibly created the earth.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you don't have any understanding of how evolution works, you have no place disputing it. You're arguement just makes you look silly.
"Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu
Hi all, I'm just wondering if anyone can answer this.
It seems like the science of evolution is always on the hot seat even though its a relitively simple concept. Why do people not doubt other hard to imagine sciences like plate tectonics or relativity. Why do people have such a hard time with evolution, other than that they are often spiritualy biased against it. Or is that just it?
But if you can accept the science behind one theory, why not another. The scientific method is the scientific method, is it not?
another question i ask myself is why do people deny the existence of a God? apart from fundamental religion and things of that sort, would it hurt anyone to find out if there really was in fact a god somewhere out there? i usually just think that because they believe in evolution and stuff that they are biased against it too, go figure.
why are some atheists fixed on the idea that there is absolutely in fact no such thing as a god whatsoever and anyone who believes so would be deemed a fool?
but apart from science and such and even evolution... i don't got a problem with it. i mean, it's almost irrelevant to me.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you don't have any understanding of how evolution works, you have no place disputing it. You're arguement just makes you look silly.
How ironic. I could say the same about you and the Bible.
I know this is going to sound completely ignorant of me (because that's the word people like to use), but I do not believe most of what scientists have to say. I don't. It's all mostly theories and educated guesses. I say people need to use their own common sense and draw their own conclusions.
I'm not saying I don't believe in scientific FACTS. But I don't have much respect for some scientists.
I'm not going to try to convince you to believe there is a God, so please don't try to convince me that evolution exists.
They're both based on faith and choosing what you want to believe.
When life gives you lemons, throw them at somebody.
How ironic. I could say the same about you and the Bible.
that's true... i never thought of that. apart from that i completely understand what mookie blaylock is saying... don't get me wrong... i understand your point-of-view as well.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
another question i ask myself is why do people deny the existence of a God?
I have a lack of belief in god. It just is what it is. You didn't choose to believe in guess, I didn't choose not to believe.
would it hurt anyone to find out if there really was in fact a god somewhere out there?
No, trust me if I see proof of god, I'll believe, I wouldn't deny god.
i usually just think that because they believe in evolution and stuff that they are biased against it too, go figure.
God and evolution do not exclude each other in my opinion, unless of course you believe the earth is 6000 years old, and teenage dinosaurs lived on Noah's arc or that god placed fossils to test our faith, the prankster!
why are some atheists fixed on the idea that there is absolutely in fact no such thing as a god whatsoever and anyone who believes so would be deemed a fool?
If you want to believe that's fine, I don't consider you a fool.
I have a lack of belief in god. It just is what it is. You didn't choose to believe in guess, I didn't choose not to believe.
would you consider yourself more of an agnostic?
No, trust me if I see proof of god, I'll believe, I wouldn't deny god.
well, that's too bad cause there's no proof... and i'm annoyed by those christians that say there is proof in god.
God and evolution do not exclude each other in my opinion, unless of course you believe the earth is 6000 years old, and teenage dinosaurs lived on Noah's arc or that god placed fossils to test our faith, the prankster!
you're absolutely right.
If you want to believe that's fine, I don't consider you a fool.
that's why i thank God for people like you.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
well, that's too bad cause there's no proof... and i'm annoyed by those christians that say there is proof in god.
There is proof when you have personal spiritual experiences with God. Ten years ago, when I was grappling with my own spiritual experiences, I heard that in that specific year alone, 30 some percent of Americans had spiritual experiences. That's quite significant. If you see God, or have a spiritual experience, there is NO turning back.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
How ironic. I could say the same about you and the Bible.
Many atheists have read the bible, many atheist were raised Catholics or whatever. I've read the bible. Have you read anything about evolution from a non-religious source?
I know this is going to sound completely ignorant of me (because that's the word people like to use), but I do not believe most of what scientists have to say. I don't. It's all mostly theories and educated guesses.
You were able to type this because of science, I was able to read what you wrote because of science and I'll half way across the world. Everywhere you look there's science; proof that science isn't all educated guesses and theories. How can you ignore or dismiss that?
I say people need to use their own common sense and draw their own conclusions.
I agree.
I'm not saying I don't believe in scientific FACTS. But I don't have much respect for some scientists.
Why not?
I'm not going to try to convince you to believe there is a God, so please don't try to convince me that evolution exists.
I'm not going to try and convince you to just accept evolution. Read up on it, educate yourself about evolution and use your common sense and draw your own conclusion then. Not before you even look into it. You say you believe in scientific facts so why shy away from evolution?
There is proof when you have personal spiritual experiences with God. Ten years ago, when I was grappling with my own spiritual experiences, I heard that in that specific year alone, 30 some percent of Americans had spiritual experiences. That's quite significant. If you see God, or have a spiritual experience, there is NO turning back.
not unless, yes of course. but try to explain that to someone who needs proof to believe. no one will ever see God and no one ever has. spiritual experiences are due to matters of believing without seeing... and what makes it even more intruiging, beautiful and meaningful is that you do not see it.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
No. I think if there is a god it would be something that doesn't have emotions, that doesn't care about us, that's not aware of us... I wouldn't call it god either.
So no, either way to me god is not there or not something I should pray to or even pay attention to. It would be like worshipping gravity, sort of.
"(13) The origin of superstition above given affords us a clear reason for
the fact, that it comes to all men naturally, though some refer its rise to
a dim notion of God, universal to mankind, and also tends to show, that it
is no less inconsistent and variable than other mental hallucinations and
emotional impulses, and further that it can only be maintained by hope,
hatred, anger, and deceit; since it springs, not from reason, but solely
from the more powerful phases of emotion. (14) Furthermore, we may readily
understand how difficult it is, to maintain in the same course men prone to
every form of credulity. (15) For, as the mass of mankind remains always at
about the same pitch of misery, it never assents long to any one remedy, but
is always best pleased by a novelty which has not yet proved illusive.
(16) This element of inconsistency has been the cause of many terrible wars
and revolutions; for, as Curtius well says (lib. iv. chap. 10): "The mob has
no ruler more potent than superstition," and is easily led, on the plea of
religion, at one moment to adore its kings as gods, and anon to execrate and
abjure them as humanity's common bane. (17) Immense pains have therefore
been taken to counteract this evil by investing religion, whether true or
false, with such pomp and ceremony, that it may, rise superior to every
shock, and be always observed with studious reverence by the whole people -
a system which has been brought to great perfection by the Turks, for they
consider even controversy impious, and so clog men's minds with dogmatic
formulas, that they leave no room for sound reason, not even enough to doubt
with.
(12) Imagination does not, in its own nature, involve any certainty of
truth, such as is implied in every clear and distinct idea, but requires
some extrinsic reason to assure us of its objective reality: hence prophecy
cannot afford certainty, and the prophets were assured of God's revelation
by some sign, and not by the fact of revelation, as we may see from Abraham,
who, when he had heard the promise of God, demanded a sign, not because he
did not believe in God, but because he wished to be sure that it was God Who
made the promise. (13) The fact is still more evident in the case of Gideon:
"Show me," he says to God, "show me a sign, that I may know that it is Thou
that talkest with me." (14) God also says to Moses: "And let this be a
sign that I have sent thee." (15) Hezekiah, though he had long known Isaiah
to be a prophet, none the less demanded a sign of the cure which he
predicted. (15) It is thus quite evident that the prophets always received
some sign to certify them of their prophetic imaginings; and for this reason
Moses bids the Jews (Deut. xviii.) ask of the prophets a sign, namely, the
prediction of some coming event. (16) In this respect, prophetic knowledge
is inferior to natural knowledge, which needs no sign, and in itself implies
certitude. (17) Moreover, Scripture warrants the statement that the
certitude of the prophets was not mathematical, but moral. (18) Moses lays
down the punishment of death for the prophet who preaches new gods, even
though he confirm his doctrine by signs and wonders (Deut. xiii.); "For," he
says, "the Lord also worketh signs and wonders to try His people." (19) And
Jesus Christ warns His disciples of the same thing (Matt. xxiv:24). (20)
Furthermore, Ezekiel (xiv:9) plainly states that God sometimes deceives
men with false revelations; and Micaiah bears like witness in the case of
the prophets of Ahab"
- Benedict de Spinoza (Theologico-Political Treatise) http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/1spnt10.txt
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
not unless, yes of course. but try to explain that to someone who needs proof to believe. no one will ever see God and no one ever has. spiritual experiences are due to matters of believing without seeing... and what makes it even more intruiging, beautiful and meaningful is that you do not see it.
I understand it's not the type of proof required for science. And still, I have seen God on numerous occasions. Naturally. And it has been more real than what is before me right now. If God had not presented itself to me, I would probably sound like many of the athiests on this board in these debates.
I also understand people who take science facts and weave those facts into a different theory than the going science theory. Just like people say that a view of life is flawed if you don't take the natural world into consideration via science, it is also flawed in terms of truly understanding reality if you don't take into consideration the spiritual levels of our existence. Just because science cannot study them is not reason to discard the totality of the universe on all levels.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I understand it's not the type of proof required for science. And still, I have seen God on numerous occasions. Naturally. And it has been more real than what is before me right now. If God had not presented itself to me, I would probably sound like many of the athiests on this board in these debates.
I also understand people who take science facts and weave those facts into a different theory than the going science theory. Just like people say that a view of life is flawed if you don't take the natural world into consideration via science, it is also flawed in terms of truly understanding reality if you don't take into consideration the spiritual levels of our existence. Just because science cannot study them is not reason to discard the totality of the universe on all levels.
whatever you saw... was not God... but a mere manifestation of God. i can say the same thing when i see my brothers in Christ... cause biblically I can connotate the same thing... nothing more... that I have seen God. but i am not speaking of facts here, or much less rather trying to sound like an atheist... not unless you believe in some other form of God... i don't know.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
"(13) The origin of superstition above given affords us a clear reason for
the fact, that it comes to all men naturally, though some refer its rise to
a dim notion of God, universal to mankind, and also tends to show, that it
is no less inconsistent and variable than other mental hallucinations and
emotional impulses, and further that it can only be maintained by hope,
hatred, anger, and deceit; since it springs, not from reason, but solely
from the more powerful phases of emotion. (14) Furthermore, we may readily
understand how difficult it is, to maintain in the same course men prone to
every form of credulity. (15) For, as the mass of mankind remains always at
about the same pitch of misery, it never assents long to any one remedy, but
is always best pleased by a novelty which has not yet proved illusive.
(16) This element of inconsistency has been the cause of many terrible wars
and revolutions; for, as Curtius well says (lib. iv. chap. 10): "The mob has
no ruler more potent than superstition," and is easily led, on the plea of
religion, at one moment to adore its kings as gods, and anon to execrate and
abjure them as humanity's common bane. (17) Immense pains have therefore
been taken to counteract this evil by investing religion, whether true or
false, with such pomp and ceremony, that it may, rise superior to every
shock, and be always observed with studious reverence by the whole people -
a system which has been brought to great perfection by the Turks, for they
consider even controversy impious, and so clog men's minds with dogmatic
formulas, that they leave no room for sound reason, not even enough to doubt
with.
(12) Imagination does not, in its own nature, involve any certainty of
truth, such as is implied in every clear and distinct idea, but requires
some extrinsic reason to assure us of its objective reality: hence prophecy
cannot afford certainty, and the prophets were assured of God's revelation
by some sign, and not by the fact of revelation, as we may see from Abraham,
who, when he had heard the promise of God, demanded a sign, not because he
did not believe in God, but because he wished to be sure that it was God Who
made the promise. (13) The fact is still more evident in the case of Gideon:
"Show me," he says to God, "show me a sign, that I may know that it is Thou
that talkest with me." (14) God also says to Moses: "And let this be a
sign that I have sent thee." (15) Hezekiah, though he had long known Isaiah
to be a prophet, none the less demanded a sign of the cure which he
predicted. (15) It is thus quite evident that the prophets always received
some sign to certify them of their prophetic imaginings; and for this reason
Moses bids the Jews (Deut. xviii.) ask of the prophets a sign, namely, the
prediction of some coming event. (16) In this respect, prophetic knowledge
is inferior to natural knowledge, which needs no sign, and in itself implies
certitude. (17) Moreover, Scripture warrants the statement that the
certitude of the prophets was not mathematical, but moral. (18) Moses lays
down the punishment of death for the prophet who preaches new gods, even
though he confirm his doctrine by signs and wonders (Deut. xiii.); "For," he
says, "the Lord also worketh signs and wonders to try His people." (19) And
Jesus Christ warns His disciples of the same thing (Matt. xxiv:24). (20)
Furthermore, Ezekiel (xiv:9) plainly states that God sometimes deceives
men with false revelations; and Micaiah bears like witness in the case of
the prophets of Ahab"
- Benedict de Spinoza (Theologico-Political Treatise) http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/1spnt10.txt
50) "I must at this juncture declare that those doctrines
which certain churches put forward concerning Christ, I neither affirm nor
deny, for I freely confess that I do not understand them."
- Benedict de Spinoza (Theologico-Political Treatise)
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
50) "I must at this juncture declare that those doctrines
which certain churches put forward concerning Christ, I neither affirm nor
deny, for I freely confess that I do not understand them."
- Benedict de Spinoza (Theologico-Political Treatise)
Yea, he is interpreting the scripture, not the doctrines of the churches.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
the doctrine of the churches is the scripture itself.
It's an interpretation of scripture.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
whatever you saw... was not God... but a mere manifestation of God. i can say the same thing when i see my brothers in Christ... cause biblically I can connotate the same thing... nothing more... that I have seen God. but i am not speaking of facts here, or much less rather trying to sound like an atheist... not unless you believe in some other form of God... i don't know.
With all due respect, you have no idea what I saw and therefore what you say regarding those experiences is about your imagination.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
With all due respect, you have no idea what I saw and therefore what you say regarding those experiences is about your imagination.
and with all due respect, i respect what you saw and i mean no offense by it. but i am not convinced that you saw God... since i am an avid reader of the bible it mentions that no one has ever seen God at any time. and i said if you believe something entirely different as opposed to biblical beliefs... then i understand. God is to potent and too supernatural for our natural bodies to contain.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
Comments
As can the entire argument against God ("I can't fathom")
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Believing in God is in no way a reason to not understand evolution.
Agreed.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
You're getting tripped up by a curb one-inch high.
Read it! And learn something.
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
I agree and I think this is what it comes down to, Kann. One may believe in a creator, as they see fit, since, science says nothing either for or against one. But, to me, the choice to believe evolution is not as easy. If you choose to disbelieve evolution, you choose to disbelieve in the scientific method, and the majority of the biological study done in the last century, even the most basic results that you can reproduce yourself, in front of your own eyes, with a jar of fruit flies. Evolution is a scientific process that is observed to occur. Many object to it because it seems to contradict the Biblical version of creation. But there is a problem: all the evidence we have points to evolution being true.
This site might have already been posted here, but here is a good link for the non-biologists to read up on evolution http://www.talkorigins.org/
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I think this is a good point, SharonC and maybe where some of the confusion stems for a few. There have been various modifications to the theory of evolution, but most of the principles have remained intact, e.g., Darwin proposed natural selection, but he didn't have an understanding of how inheritance and the appearance of new traits work (i.e., genetics). Evolution, in of itself, is not in dispute, but there is plenty of debate about mechanisms. For example, Gould & Dawkins have different approaches. You'll find that some people propose that evolution is generally a uniform, gradual process, while others propose that much of evolution happens in relatively sudden spurts. Or, if you read the writings of Kauffman, he proposes that natural selection is overrated, and that some features of the genome can be explained by means of self-organization, in the absence of any kind of selective pressure.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Sounds interesting (...in a frustrating sort of way
This is kind of my point. It's not that understanding evolution doesn't have benefits, it's that because of their biases the general public remains (perhaps deliberately) unaware of them. That doesn't mean they aren't important benefits.
I think misconceptions come from both of these things you mentioned; refusal to accept evolutionary theory, and lack of correct instruction in school. Many, many science teachers have had minimal exposure to evolution, refuse to accept it, and because of that refusal don't bother to understand it. Those teachers pass that ignorance of evolution and all of the misconceptions that go with it on to their students.
Very true. And I think when the public sees debate over this sort of thing (which can get heated), they get the impression that scientists disagree on the occurrence of evolution, when in fact, that's not the case.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you don't have any understanding of how evolution works, you have no place disputing it. You're arguement just makes you look silly.
-Ashley Montagu
why are some atheists fixed on the idea that there is absolutely in fact no such thing as a god whatsoever and anyone who believes so would be deemed a fool?
but apart from science and such and even evolution... i don't got a problem with it. i mean, it's almost irrelevant to me.
I know this is going to sound completely ignorant of me (because that's the word people like to use), but I do not believe most of what scientists have to say. I don't. It's all mostly theories and educated guesses. I say people need to use their own common sense and draw their own conclusions.
I'm not saying I don't believe in scientific FACTS. But I don't have much respect for some scientists.
I'm not going to try to convince you to believe there is a God, so please don't try to convince me that evolution exists.
They're both based on faith and choosing what you want to believe.
I have a lack of belief in god. It just is what it is. You didn't choose to believe in guess, I didn't choose not to believe.
No, trust me if I see proof of god, I'll believe, I wouldn't deny god.
God and evolution do not exclude each other in my opinion, unless of course you believe the earth is 6000 years old, and teenage dinosaurs lived on Noah's arc or that god placed fossils to test our faith, the prankster!
If you want to believe that's fine, I don't consider you a fool.
naděje umírá poslední
well, that's too bad cause there's no proof... and i'm annoyed by those christians that say there is proof in god.
you're absolutely right.
that's why i thank God for people like you.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Many atheists have read the bible, many atheist were raised Catholics or whatever. I've read the bible. Have you read anything about evolution from a non-religious source?
You were able to type this because of science, I was able to read what you wrote because of science and I'll half way across the world. Everywhere you look there's science; proof that science isn't all educated guesses and theories. How can you ignore or dismiss that?
I agree.
Why not?
I'm not going to try and convince you to just accept evolution. Read up on it, educate yourself about evolution and use your common sense and draw your own conclusion then. Not before you even look into it. You say you believe in scientific facts so why shy away from evolution?
naděje umírá poslední
No. I think if there is a god it would be something that doesn't have emotions, that doesn't care about us, that's not aware of us... I wouldn't call it god either.
So no, either way to me god is not there or not something I should pray to or even pay attention to. It would be like worshipping gravity, sort of.
naděje umírá poslední
the fact, that it comes to all men naturally, though some refer its rise to
a dim notion of God, universal to mankind, and also tends to show, that it
is no less inconsistent and variable than other mental hallucinations and
emotional impulses, and further that it can only be maintained by hope,
hatred, anger, and deceit; since it springs, not from reason, but solely
from the more powerful phases of emotion. (14) Furthermore, we may readily
understand how difficult it is, to maintain in the same course men prone to
every form of credulity. (15) For, as the mass of mankind remains always at
about the same pitch of misery, it never assents long to any one remedy, but
is always best pleased by a novelty which has not yet proved illusive.
(16) This element of inconsistency has been the cause of many terrible wars
and revolutions; for, as Curtius well says (lib. iv. chap. 10): "The mob has
no ruler more potent than superstition," and is easily led, on the plea of
religion, at one moment to adore its kings as gods, and anon to execrate and
abjure them as humanity's common bane. (17) Immense pains have therefore
been taken to counteract this evil by investing religion, whether true or
false, with such pomp and ceremony, that it may, rise superior to every
shock, and be always observed with studious reverence by the whole people -
a system which has been brought to great perfection by the Turks, for they
consider even controversy impious, and so clog men's minds with dogmatic
formulas, that they leave no room for sound reason, not even enough to doubt
with.
(12) Imagination does not, in its own nature, involve any certainty of
truth, such as is implied in every clear and distinct idea, but requires
some extrinsic reason to assure us of its objective reality: hence prophecy
cannot afford certainty, and the prophets were assured of God's revelation
by some sign, and not by the fact of revelation, as we may see from Abraham,
who, when he had heard the promise of God, demanded a sign, not because he
did not believe in God, but because he wished to be sure that it was God Who
made the promise. (13) The fact is still more evident in the case of Gideon:
"Show me," he says to God, "show me a sign, that I may know that it is Thou
that talkest with me." (14) God also says to Moses: "And let this be a
sign that I have sent thee." (15) Hezekiah, though he had long known Isaiah
to be a prophet, none the less demanded a sign of the cure which he
predicted. (15) It is thus quite evident that the prophets always received
some sign to certify them of their prophetic imaginings; and for this reason
Moses bids the Jews (Deut. xviii.) ask of the prophets a sign, namely, the
prediction of some coming event. (16) In this respect, prophetic knowledge
is inferior to natural knowledge, which needs no sign, and in itself implies
certitude. (17) Moreover, Scripture warrants the statement that the
certitude of the prophets was not mathematical, but moral. (18) Moses lays
down the punishment of death for the prophet who preaches new gods, even
though he confirm his doctrine by signs and wonders (Deut. xiii.); "For," he
says, "the Lord also worketh signs and wonders to try His people." (19) And
Jesus Christ warns His disciples of the same thing (Matt. xxiv:24). (20)
Furthermore, Ezekiel (xiv:9) plainly states that God sometimes deceives
men with false revelations; and Micaiah bears like witness in the case of
the prophets of Ahab"
- Benedict de Spinoza (Theologico-Political Treatise)
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/1spnt10.txt
I also understand people who take science facts and weave those facts into a different theory than the going science theory. Just like people say that a view of life is flawed if you don't take the natural world into consideration via science, it is also flawed in terms of truly understanding reality if you don't take into consideration the spiritual levels of our existence. Just because science cannot study them is not reason to discard the totality of the universe on all levels.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
which certain churches put forward concerning Christ, I neither affirm nor
deny, for I freely confess that I do not understand them."
- Benedict de Spinoza (Theologico-Political Treatise)
Yea, he is interpreting the scripture, not the doctrines of the churches.
It's an interpretation of scripture.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!