Just know that all of you will burn in hell!!!!! Dancing to your Devil music and taking your mind expanding drugs. To Hell I tells ya, to hell!! ha ha ha

Yeah, well, skipping the already discussed detail about god and evolution not being antonyms of each other, I just want to ask who is it that decides which god is the right god? Every religion claims it is the one and only way to salvation. What makes the christian god (whose primary denomination has accepted that the bible should be viewed as an allegory and that Darwin was probably right) any more logical than indian deities?

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by TheNobleEu DM4Eva!

Fuck yes.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 What makes the christian god (whose primary denomination has accepted that the bible should be viewed as an allegory and that Darwin was probably right) any more logical than indian deities?

There are only two reasons why anyone would convert to organised religion:

1) Geographical / social convenience. ("I'll inherit this religion because that's what 95% of the people around me believe".)
2) The religion conforms to a pre-held world-view. ("I believe x, which is what this religion holds to be true, therefore I'll become an adherent to this religion".)

No-one with the slightest bit of intellectual integrity moves from a position of non-theism to an orthodox religious position because they feel that that particular religion, ultimately, offers the best, most accurate explanation for the world around them. Adherence to religious doctrine is never about finding truth or fact, it's almost always about intellectual laziness and an unwillingness to search deeper for answers to the questions that we all have about our existence.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 What makes the christian god (whose primary denomination has accepted that the bible should be viewed as an allegory and that Darwin was probably right) any more logical than indian deities?

I thought that the largest Christian denomination, with around 65% of the total followers was Catholicism, which certainly has not admitted either of those things. Which were you thinking of?

Nothing makes any God more logical than any other (which is perhaps why the Flying Spaghetti Monster here, and Bob the Wonder Squirrel have both been created), but what most people in an area believe in will come to be taken as the God for that region.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Larkin I thought that the largest Christian denomination, with around 65% of the total followers was Catholicism, which certainly has not admitted either of those things. Which were you thinking of?

Actually, the Catholic church accepts the legitimacy of evolutionary theory. Pope Pius XII was the first pope to suggest that there was no conflict between the theory of evolution and Catholic teaching:

quote:

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Ada...d_Evolution.asp

And John Paul II re-affirmed that in a speech in 1996:

quote:

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points. [...] Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. [...] Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

(Full speech available at that link.)

As for Biblical inerrancy, I've got no idea what the Catholics are supposed to believe. I googled it and found this link which only confuses me further:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm

I think that papal infallibility is still central to their belief structure (i.e. whatever he says, goes) but, based on these edicts, I think that strict Biblical inerrancy is one of those parts of Catholicism where no real consensus has been reached and it's more or less up to the believer to decide for themselves.



"That's the great thing about Catholicism. It's so vague and nobody really knows what it's all about..."

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Renegade on Aug-17-2005 at 17:08

Oh dear... I'm having an off week. Sorry about this. Keep up the good work correcting me.

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: your missing the point entirely. u cant be one or the other. as you said yourself, god(any god) has nothing to do with evolution. evolution doesnt believe in a creator god. if there is no creator god, there is no god, hence, u cant believe in a god and evolution at the same time. if u think evolution is science, and u believe in science whole-heartedly, then u know mainstream science does not recognize a god of any kind. or any deity. so i dont know why you think belief in both a god and evolution at the same time is a plausible notion.

Science is not Based on Belief therefore it cannot discard the existance or non-existance of a creator being. Making this particular argument useless rhetoric.
Atheism means you believe there is no God. Which translates to believing something. Making the argument useless in the scientific eye.

A true Scientist would be something like an agnostic: Either you seriously doubt there is a god or you seriously doubt that there isn't.

BTW these are important concepts in a philosophy which you failed to take into account which is Daoism. Its not Atheistic, its not Pantheistic, its not Monotheistic, or Dualistic, or Animistic (which the thread starter also forgot to mention).

^^
Yeah, well, I hardly believe anyone here believes in the animistic worldiew. That's just about as meaningful as the literal intrepretation of the bible..eh..wait..

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: some people want to believe in a middle ground that isnt there.

nothing is ever black and white. we live mostly in grey areas. what i mean to say is that i think blind faith in anything is harmful. i believe in evolution but i also believe in god. i think its plato or aristotle who tried to prove the existence of god as being (one of the many proofs he developed) the prime mover. there had to be someone to set things in motion. thats not necessarily my belief but science proves that we evolved from apes. im not saying you believe what i am about to say but belief that humans are the reason the earth is here than i think you are wrong. who knows what type of life will inhert the earth after millions of years of evolution? i dont see anything wrong with believing in evolution and god. i think they go hand in hand. i aslo belive that choice c of the poll goes hand in hand with a and b. i gotta admit i think we try to define certain things as being differnt... im probably babbling but i think ive made some decent arguements.

best

EDIT: as i read my post i dont think ive made much sense. maybe you can pick out some decent point but goddamn, like marty mcfly says, "this is heavy."

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Wait ... you mean a God who is less psuedo than the Christian God???? Wow, I'm surprised you have a whole classification scheme for "legitimate" and "psuedo" Gods. Care to elaborate on what distinguishes the two?

by psuedo-god, i meant, i want to make up my own diety. it will be my cat. i will worship my cat. that makes the cat a psuedo-god.

quote:

Originally posted by djHollen nothing is ever black and white. we live mostly in grey areas. what i mean to say is that i think blind faith in anything is harmful. i believe in evolution but i also believe in god. i think its plato or aristotle who tried to prove the existence of god as being (one of the many proofs he developed) the prime mover. there had to be someone to set things in motion. thats not necessarily my belief but science proves that we evolved from apes. im not saying you believe what i am about to say but belief that humans are the reason the earth is here than i think you are wrong. who knows what type of life will inhert the earth after millions of years of evolution? i dont see anything wrong with believing in evolution and god. i think they go hand in hand. i aslo belive that choice c of the poll goes hand in hand with a and b. i gotta admit i think we try to define certain things as being differnt... im probably babbling but i think ive made some decent arguements.

by saying we evolved from apes and this was all from god's setting into motion of evolution, you're contracdicting yourself. the bible states there was no death before adam and eve sinned. does an ape have the capacity to know right from wrong? Are they able to talk? apes are not capable of transgression because they are animals. they follow their instincts, while humans have the strange freedom to think outside of our instincts. genesis states we were created in the "image of god". god's image cant change. are you going to tell me he is an ape?

the evolutionary timeline of the earth and the biblical one are totally different. you cant put your belief in both.

creation: everything was there at the time of creation, humans lived hundreds of years, humans were very tall, firmament above the earth, richly abundant earth, more oxygen, no rain, pleasant climate, flood, climate change, extinction of many species, shorter life spans, earth is thousands of years old, etc.

evolution: continual climate changes, continual changing of species, mass extinctions, the earth is billions of years old, no supernatural beginning, humans are just another part of nature; nothing more different than a house flies DNA.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: god's image cant change. are you going to tell me he is an ape?

There you go! Why not? We have been so stupid, how could we not see this?! Of course God is an ape, sitting somewhere in Affrica's rainforests eating bananas and laughing at us!

Revelation of the day.