• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is why religion is a problem

Not at all what I was discussing. You stated, ". . . they have to rely on arguments they have acquired from people who were barely out of the stone age." That's simply not true. Theological arguments are being offered and reviewed constantly.

This is apples to loaves and fishes anyhow. Homeopaths are trying to prove they're a legitimate science without using scientific foundations and ignoring any scientific findings.

Arguing and discussing a topic doesn't necessarily advance anything. Try listening to a save the world conversation in the pub on a Fri night. For all their discussion, theologians haven't proven anything of note that could improve the human race's lot, for that reason alone, their discussions are vacuous and valueless.

For the sake of simplicity, yeppers, you're right. But the point here is that Bill can question his faith, and Bill is hardly being forced into blind adherence.

So providing Bill keeps quiet about his misgivings on say, abortion or perhaps contraception, and in effect lies to the guy in the pointy hat, he is ok. Somehow I don't think the guy in the pointy hat sees it in quite that way.
 
Arguing and discussing a topic doesn't necessarily advance anything. Try listening to a save the world conversation in the pub on a Fri night. For all their discussion, theologians haven't proven anything of note that could improve the human race's lot, for that reason alone, their discussions are vacuous and valueless.

Not in disagreement, and not my point either.

So providing Bill keeps quiet about his misgivings on say, abortion or perhaps contraception, and in effect lies to the guy in the pointy hat, he is ok. Somehow I don't think the guy in the pointy hat sees it in quite that way.

Again, not in disagreement, nor my point. <shrug>
 
Arguing and discussing a topic doesn't necessarily advance anything. Try listening to a save the world conversation in the pub on a Fri night. For all their discussion, theologians haven't proven anything of note that could improve the human race's lot, for that reason alone, their discussions are vacuous and valueless.



So providing Bill keeps quiet about his misgivings on say, abortion or perhaps contraception, and in effect lies to the guy in the pointy hat, he is ok. Somehow I don't think the guy in the pointy hat sees it in quite that way.

(nor the invisible omniscient dude who told the guy in the pointy hat to pass on his views)
 
I can agree with this, quite heartily in fact. So by this measure, which faiths would you then consider to be unfounded?

Those of YECs and muslims who think they need to defend their god from the evils of comic strips come to mind :)
 
The religion mentioned below has been responsible for quite a bit as well.

[excerpt

Leading anti-creationist philosopher
admits that evolution is a religion‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’

Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.

Reference
Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/quotes/ruse.asp
 
Those of YECs and muslims who think they need to defend their god from the evils of comic strips come to mind :)

Is YEC Young Earth Creationism? Sorry, I'm just not familiar with the acronym.

In either case, yes, I would agree with you. I find it laughable that any "god" needs adherents to defend him/her. That seems counter-intuitive, especially when they all want to claim how great their god is, how merciful and loving. So merciful and loving that they'll bash your head in if you're on the wrong side of an opinion.
 
The religion mentioned below has been responsible for quite a bit as well.
Leading anti-creationist philosopher
admits that evolution is a religion‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’

Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.

Reference
Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...uotes/ruse.asp
[excerpt

Try removing the pejorative arguments and see what precisely you are saying.

Ruse convinced the judge that evolution was not a religion.
 
Funny that so many don't acknowledge what has been repeatedly admitted by evolutionist scientists themselves.


Excerpt

This material is excerpted from the book, EVOLUTION AND SOCIETY. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist.

Evolutionists freely admit that evolution is a religion, and can only be accepted by faith.


Darwinism is a mythology.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.
It is a faith.

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."—*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition).


Evolution makes man into his own god. It is "a nontheistic religion."
"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a nontheistic religion, a way of life."—*American Humanist Association, promotional brochure.
This bewitching power that captivates men so that they will live and die in defense of pointless thinking and factless theory is termed by them a "religion."
"It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men's minds."—*Encounter, November, p. 48 (1959).

*Huxley, *Charles Darwin's personal champion, made a startling admission:
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation."—*Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903).



"Biogenesis" is the theory that life originated from nonlife one day when some sand and seawater changed itself into a living being. It is accepted by faith, for there is no evidence to support such an idea.
"It is therefore a matter of faith, on the part of the biologist, that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available."—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 150.


The theory of evolution up the ladder from simple organisms to more complex ones, requires a level of faith not based on fact that is astonishing.

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."—*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p. 63.
 
Last edited:
Funny that so many don't acknowledge what has been repeatedly admitted by evolutionist scientists themselves.


Excerpt

Name me one well respected, contemporary evolutionary biologist who considers evolution a religion.

"Repeatedly admitted", how absurd.
 

Back
Top Bottom