Vatican endorses Evolution...disses Creationism

[jammies]

Originally Posted by photon

Basically it had the same premise.. most Christians don't actually *believe* what they say they believe, at least not at their core. .

Of course not, otherwise funerals would be occasions for mad dancing and celebration, not mourning and sadness. If you actually BELIEVED death was a ticket to heaven, you would be happy every time someone you knew and loved died - not sad.

Note that I'm not saying that all believers are hypocrites who know deep down their faith is a lie (although to be sure some must be). It is more a question of the desire for belief substituting for belief itself, a deliberate decision that prefers ignorance to knowledge, and for what SHOULD be true as compared to what actually is.

It's philosophy that asserts that will is the essential measure of truth. Of course, most people lack the focused will to truly set themselves up as infallible, which is why their beliefs are both shallowly rooted and fiercely defended - there is nothing so precious as something you are already barely holding on to.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jammies

Of course not, otherwise funerals would be occasions for mad dancing and celebration, not mourning and sadness. If you actually BELIEVED death was a ticket to heaven, you would be happy every time someone you knew and loved died - not sad.

Note that I'm not saying that all believers are hypocrites who know deep down their faith is a lie (although to be sure some must be). It is more a question of the desire for belief substituting for belief itself, a deliberate decision that prefers ignorance to knowledge, and for what SHOULD be true as compared to what actually is.

It's philosophy that asserts that will is the essential measure of truth. Of course, most people lack the focused will to truly set themselves up as infallible, which is why their beliefs are both shallowly rooted and fiercely defended - there is nothing so precious as something you are already barely holding on to.

I think most people have some degree of agnostic tendencies, whether they consider themselves spiritual or atheist. It's really the only logical position imo.

I shake my head at idea that anyone can be 100% either way, although a lot of people on both sides sure like to preach it like they know for sure.

[pepper24]

This just in.........the earth isn't flat!!

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I shake my head at idea that anyone can be 100% either way, although a lot of people on both sides sure like to preach it like they know for sure.

Most atheists aren't 100% sure, and even the ones who are strongly atheist will usually qualify their atheism with regards to specific gods.. I.e. they may be very confident that the God of the Bible does not exist, but are less so about a theoretical hands-off God that created the universe and then left everything on its own (for example). This is because in the case of the God of the Bible, there are very specific claims made about God that can be evaluated. So an atheist of the God of the Bible may be agnostic to other gods but atheist about that specific God.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by photon

Most atheists aren't 100% sure, and even the ones who are strongly atheist will usually qualify their atheism with regards to specific gods.. I.e. they may be very confident that the God of the Bible does not exist, but are less so about a theoretical hands-off God that created the universe and then left everything on its own (for example). This is because in the case of the God of the Bible, there are very specific claims made about God that can be evaluated. So an atheist of the God of the Bible may be agnostic to other gods but atheist about that specific God.

I'm putting my money on Odin, its not 70 virgins but Viking afterlife sounds like fun.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by jammies

Of course not, otherwise funerals would be occasions for mad dancing and celebration, not mourning and sadness. If you actually BELIEVED death was a ticket to heaven, you would be happy every time someone you knew and loved died - not sad.

Note that I'm not saying that all believers are hypocrites who know deep down their faith is a lie (although to be sure some must be). It is more a question of the desire for belief substituting for belief itself, a deliberate decision that prefers ignorance to knowledge, and for what SHOULD be true as compared to what actually is.

It's philosophy that asserts that will is the essential measure of truth. Of course, most people lack the focused will to truly set themselves up as infallible, which is why their beliefs are both shallowly rooted and fiercely defended - there is nothing so precious as something you are already barely holding on to.

I'm not sure that's true.

First of all, there are cultures in which funerals are most definitely celebrations. Another thing to remember is people are selfish. They aren't always sad because a loved one is dead and doesn't exist anymore, they are sad because the loved one's absence has a negative impact on their life.

[RougeUnderoos]

Interesting Roger Ebert article up right now. Check it out.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...9219997/-1/RSS

Q. What about oil and coal, which seem to have been generated from ancient forests millions of years ago?
A. They are evidence of a Great Flood about 4,400 years ago, which laid down all the layers of sediment at once. They are nowhere near as old as evolutionists and archeologists say. A fossil claimed to be 200 million years old, found in Nevada in 1917, shows a shoe print. [See photograph]

So while the Pope might not buy it, the movie reviewer apparently does. Or his site might have been hacked, or this is a joke. It's pretty weird.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Interesting Roger Ebert article up right now. Check it out.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...9219997/-1/RSS



So while the Pope might not buy it, the movie reviewer apparently does. Or his site might have been hacked, or this is a joke. It's pretty weird.

Another reason why a movie reviewer shouldn't be teaching anything, maybe he should pop in Ken Miller's DVD from HHMI on evolution amidst his tens of thousands of movies.

[RougeUnderoos]

Oops. Just a little bit of checking tells me that this was likely a hack job and NOT Ebert's real opinion.

Perhaps a reaction to his refusal to review Expelled.

Q. Readers want to know if the Movie Answer Man is too PC to review "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"?
Ruddy Spencer, Tucson, Ariz.
A. The last I heard, it is not considered Politically Correct to agree with Darwin. I think it is more like, oh, intelligent."