PROOF that Evolution is a Myth

[firebug]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCook

I thought I'd post this excerpt from David Mill's book Athesit Universe.
...
Fifteen-hundred years of progress were therefore stifled by the Christian Church. Were it not for religious persecution and oppression of science, mankind might have landed on the moon in the year 650AD. Cancer may ahve been eradicated forever by the year 800AD. And heart disease may, today, be unknown. But Christianity put into deep hibernation Greek and Egyptian scientific gains of the past....

He forgot the part about the nuclear conflagration in 857AD destroying civilization, which was caused, in large part, by the accidental release of a 'superbug' from a research laboratory in 849AD.

Just having fun, which is what re-writing alternative history is all about, right?

~Bug

[Uncarved]

Will all this talk about choice and catholic school, and being forced to have religion classes. First off i am not catholic, nor christian, and i am not an athiest either, just my own beliefs. I CHOSE to go to a catholic school growing up. I switched from the public school in Grade 5 and graduated from the catholic school. I don't feel like there was anything that was forced apon me as of religion wise. I've never had the urge to get baptized, or convert. Don't get me wrong many Christians are good people and have some great beliefs, but it just isn't for me. I am pleased with the type of education that i recieved and that was something that i am not sure i was going to recieve going to a public school.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Cheese

LOL...Are we supposed to take this comment as coming from a theistic or atheistic point of view?
I dont find the human race is wasting my time at all, quite the opposite to be honest. I live each and every day as though it was my last, to the best of my ability. Ill bet you fundamentalists wish they could hop off the world right now and head to their valhalla in the sky!

LOL... are we supposed to be judging every post as to whether it is coming from an atheistic or theistic point of view?

I think your post is a perfect illustration of the inherent problem problem here. Everybody is adversarial and nothing actually gets discussed. Also I meant that many secularists/atheists feel that religious people are wasting their own lives and clouding the world.

Prejudice against religion is as prejudiced as the many faults of religion. The one thing secularists and thesists share ... are narrow minds.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Prejudice against religion is as prejudiced as the many faults of religion. The one thing secularists and thesists share ... are narrow minds.

Wah? So everyone is narrow minded?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Wah? So everyone is narrow minded?

For the purposes of this discussion, those who are vehemently against religion and those who are religious and vehemently against secularism yes.

Closed minded to each others positions and unwilling to accept the possibility of the other argument as having tangible merit or some benefit to society.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

For the purposes of this discussion, those who are vehemently against religion and those who are religious and vehemently against secularism yes.

Closed minded to each others positions and unwilling to accept the possibility of the other argument as having tangible merit or some benefit to society.

I don't think someone who is vehemently against something are closed minded, as long as they are so for a reason. Closed minded is unwilling to change when presented with a good reason to change.

No one would call us closed minded for not accepting the possibility of Zeus existing.

People like Dawkins take the position that religion causes distinct harm to society, so they aren't being closed minded.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

For the purposes of this discussion, those who are vehemently against religion and those who are religious and vehemently against secularism yes.

Closed minded to each others positions and unwilling to accept the possibility of the other argument as having tangible merit or some benefit to society.

Ah, I understand what you are getting at. I agree, it is never good to be so far on one side of an argument that you refuse to listen to the otherside. But typically a secularists is on that side because they know a lot about the religous side.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by firebug

He forgot the part about the nuclear conflagration in 857AD destroying civilization, which was caused, in large part, by the accidental release of a 'superbug' from a research laboratory in 849AD.

Just having fun, which is what re-writing alternative history is all about, right?

~Bug

Also, he forgot to mention the dominance and power of science in 1000 A.D. leading to an evil totalitarian Earth empire that led to a massive war of eugenics and scientific social engineering...resulting in a bleak dystopian nuclear-winter ravaged planet of opressed people.

Remember the totalitarian and facist scientific methods of social organization that we saw in the 20th century...like Nazi Eugenics and Marxism/Communism which were all argued as being the scientific outcome of rational thought, evolutionary/genetic superiority, and logical human organization...led by authority granted to leaders supposedly the most versed in technocratism and knowledgable in areas of science or social superiority - therefore beyond reproach and the most fitting leaders.

Like it or not, most of the terms of personal freedoms, liberties, rights, and even the tenants of capitalism and free market in our western tradition all originated out of religious influences or religious arguements as to the sanctity and worth of an individual person as granted by religion...Consider Locke, the founding fathers of the United States, Calvin, etc.

I agree that the Dark Ages were a horrible time for rational thought, science, or general human rights in western civilization - remember in those times, science was kept alive by middle-eastern Muslim scholars who not only experimented in new fields of science and mathematics, but worked hard to preserve the knowledge of the Roman era and whom without, we would likely not have a vast portion of the Greek mathematics and philosophy that we are familar with today. You are also forgetting China (but that's a different matter entirely).

BUT, without the influence of religion (post reneissance/reformation), many of the rights and freedoms you exercise and enjoy today may never have been enshrined or even contemplated in western civilization. Even when they were trying to write the U.N. convention on human rights (of which a Canadian was influential), they had an impossible time trying to argue that it had a fundamental basis in historical human rights outside of what was dictated by religious originated principles of human sanctity and individual worth.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Ah, I understand what you are getting at. I agree, it is never good to be so far on one side of an argument that you refuse to listen to the otherside. But typically a secularists is on that side because they know a lot about the religous side.

Do they really? Do most secularists here have a good understanding of religion or a religious education? Or an understanding of religion's role in shaping our western societies? Or even what certain religious groups believe down to fine points so you can argue with them on the basis and factuality of their own scripture or beliefs?

Somehow, I don't think so. The secularists usually just come up with: "religion is a fairy tale and causes wars and hatred" and consider thats all that's worth knowing about religion when there is much much more.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by photon

People like Dawkins take the position that religion causes distinct harm to society, so they aren't being closed minded.

it causes harm in some ways. it also helps society in some ways. personally, i think it does more good than harm.

everything does harm in one form or another. science gave us the atomic bomb which did a fair bit of harm to japan... therefore, BAN SCIENCE!

the only thing you'd have a hard time arguing causes harm is jainism... and fancy that, its a religion.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

For the purposes of this discussion, those who are vehemently against religion and those who are religious and vehemently against secularism yes.

Closed minded to each others positions and unwilling to accept the possibility of the other argument as having tangible merit or some benefit to society.

Actually...MOST Atheists would be more than happy to have a theist prove once and for all there is a God....or better for God to come out and do it himself. I dont think youll find many devout theists thinking the other way around.
How can an atheist be close minded? Is it the fact that we dont believe in one of over 200 Gods?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

it causes harm in some ways. it also helps society in some ways. personally, i think it does more good than harm.

everything does harm in one form or another. science gave us the atomic bomb which did a fair bit of harm to japan... therefore, BAN SCIENCE!

the only thing you'd have a hard time arguing causes harm is jainism... and fancy that, its a religion.

Once again...it is NOT religion that does good, it is MAN or WOMAN. Man or woman would do good without the shackles that religion provides. It is inherant in all of us.

PS: Jainism is about as far removed from Christianity as you can get.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Once again...it is NOT religion that does good, it is MAN or WOMAN. Man or woman would do good without the shackles that religion provides. It is inherant in all of us.

PS: Jainism is about as far removed from Christianity as you can get.

ok, so if its not the religion that does good... then its not the religion that causes harm.


ps: so the attack is against christianity and not religion in general?

[Rathji]

Personally, I don't think that creationism and evolutionism(in thier non-radical forms) are mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by Cheese

Religions are their own worst enemies.
Every theist is an "atheist" to every other religion but their own particular flavor. (eg. Christians dont believe in Islam, Islam does not believe in Judaism, pick any two flavors, etc etc).

I disagree. Just because you believe that another religion is not 100% correct, it does not mean you disbelieve the principles another religion is based on. Being Christian, I don't think Jewish or Muslim people are wrong, I don't think that Luthrans are better than Protastants or that Methodists are more correct than Catholics. What I do think is that if you have faith in God ( Allah , or whatever you call him), you are going to be rewarded according to your faith and depending on your actions being in harmony with the will of God.

There are of course exceptions to this rational, but I won't get into that here.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Do they really? Do most secularists here have a good understanding of religion or a religious education? Or an understanding of religion's role in shaping our western societies? Or even what certain religious groups believe down to fine points so you can argue with them on the basis and factuality of their own scripture or beliefs?

Somehow, I don't think so. The secularists usually just come up with: "religion is a fairy tale and causes wars and hatred" and consider thats all that's worth knowing about religion when there is much much more.

I can't speak for everyone, but typically the people (outside of this forum) that I get into a religious debates with I usually find that I know more about their religion than they do. Not everyone is like this of course. But typically the secularists who are the most outspoken about religion know a lot about it. Of course there is a group of people that don't know much about religion because they are not a part of it and wouldn't need to know anything about it.

The fact that you paint secularists with "religion is a fairy tale and causes wars and hatred" is pretty hypocritical. I could send it the other way and say that theists believe in god "because the bible says their is a god, and the bible says the bible is correct."

But truth be told I have a hard time discussing religion with people because everyone I talk to has a different understanding of their religion. Every group says "oh don't listen to that group, they are misguided and give other christians a bad name." Or the conversation turns into religious circle logic and ends. Or "christians" making up their own rules.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Personally, I don't think that creationism and evolutionism(in thier non-radical forms) are mutually exclusive.

How can they not be? Evolution says all life comes from a common ancestor, while creationism says all life was created (more or less) as is. Unless you mean a creationism that says God guided evolution along the way, but in that case He did it in such a way as to make it appear it was 100% natural, so there's no point in bringing God into it at all. That's like saying there's no gravity, it's all God moving things around, but he does it in such a way as to make it look 100% like a natural force.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by photon

How can they not be? Evolution says all life comes from a common ancestor, while creationism says all life was created (more or less) as is. Unless you mean a creationism that says God guided evolution along the way, but in that case He did it in such a way as to make it appear it was 100% natural, so there's no point in bringing God into it at all. That's like saying there's no gravity, it's all God moving things around, but he does it in such a way as to make it look 100% like a natural force.

and that certainly isn't out the realm of possibility.... i mean its an all powerful being we're talking about.... i'm sure he could pull that off.
if god has always guided all evolution, then any evolution that occurs would look like nothing un-natural or out of the ordinary.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

and that certainly isn't out the realm of possibility.... i mean its an all powerful being we're talking about.... i'm sure he could pull that off.
if god has always guided all evolution, then any evolution that occurs would look like nothing un-natural or out of the ordinary.

Of course it's possible, but it doesn't coincide with most of Christianity.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

and that certainly isn't out the realm of possibility.... i mean its an all powerful being we're talking about.... i'm sure he could pull that off.
if god has always guided all evolution, then any evolution that occurs would look like nothing un-natural or out of the ordinary.

Until you try to shoehorn Adam and Eve, The big Ark Yacht story c/w dinosaurs and the 6000 year old earth problem into evolution.
I know I know...God just made the fossils appear to be millions of years old.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Personally, I don't think that creationism and evolutionism(in thier non-radical forms) are mutually exclusive.



I disagree. Just because you believe that another religion is not 100% correct, it does not mean you disbelieve the principles another religion is based on. Being Christian, I don't think Jewish or Muslim people are wrong, I don't think that Luthrans are better than Protastants or that Methodists are more correct than Catholics. What I do think is that if you have faith in God ( Allah , or whatever you call him), you are going to be rewarded according to your faith and depending on your actions being in harmony with the will of God.

There are of course exceptions to this rational, but I won't get into that here.

You in your present form might represent 2% of theists. Seriously. A liberal theist perhaps? I doubt VERY much once again youll find many Muslims or Christians who share your view. EVERY religion is atheist about every other religion except their very own model. God/Jesus believers do not believe they will get 72 virgins when they die.