The War Against Christianity

[thaiboxerken]

Heehee...good luck on that. In fact, good luck on getting religions outlawed/abolished.

It won't happen, but that won't stop me from criticizing and attacking religion.

 

[biomorph]

I'm glad you (sort of) asked. How about the Buddhists, Quakers, reform Jews, Amish, Unitarian Universalists, Baha’is, Pagans, Wiccans, etc., and all the mainstream Christians, Muslims and Hindus who are as mortified by the extremists in their religions as we are?

I can't help seeing your solution as a baby-with-the-bathwater kind of deal.

I can understand that, I really can. All the ones you mention do impinge on an indiduals right to lead a life they otherwise would without conversion IMO, but thats only IMO.
I am sure many are genuinely and sincerely distressed by the extremist's actions. I think its lesson hard learnt. Religion only goes so far.

Baby and bathwater? what baby? .

I feel for them, in their sorrow and disapointment. If they were not religious, the sorrow and torment would reserved possibly and rightly for all the victims of those actions, rather than also for the lament that the extremists of their own faith that caused such horror.

A genuine danger. It may be that our takes on the solution to that will never be reconciled.

Ah, well. Live and let live.

They may well reconcile eventually, and if not, well l&ll (see I can do it!) it will be.

peace to you anyway my friend.

I have mine already

 

[biomorph]

Well, ya see, you "L&LL" for all the ones that follow the same. Then when you come across that jackass that abuses the system, you eject them from the tribe. Or smother them in peanut butter and leave them for a pack of wild dingos.

you're big on tribalism, and i like that.

Can i do the smothering, please please, my turn, my turn,........no i'm not allergic to nuts of the vegetative type.

only the others......

 

[articulett]

Believe it or not, I fully understand your stance. I just think that it's not an effective stance to take, if you want to have conversations as opposed to screaming matches. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, challenge all the falsifiable claims that anyone, woo, skeptic, religious, atheist or whatever brings up that you feel qualified to address.

Well tell us... what sort of things worked for you... what sort of things made you "evolve"? And by the way... you seem to be getting more feisty and losing your apologetic leanings more each day... (you will be on Unrepentant Sinners spit-list yet.)

I wish I'd have had adults prodding my thinking in this direction when I was younger... because it seemed that everyone sort of agreed that religion was good or that it had some truth so I figured some adults must know something--but I also couldn't figure out why scientists weren't testing the various gurus (ala the MDC) since our collective ETERNITIES were supposedly at stake... what could be more important than ETERNITY... it's not the kind of thing you want to take a chance on believing the wrong thing about.

The whole notion caused me incredible angst. And so I don't want to be the silent adult that keeps some other trusting person trapped in this nuttiness in an effort to please the right invisible guy by believing the right unbelievable story with the right amount of fervitude...

Although Fnord and others would like to see this as hostility towards religion or god-- I see it as a battle for truth. That's what needs to be emphasized. We need to teach people to ask "how do you know"? Why do you think you can exist without a brain when you know that brain damage greatly diminishes who a person is? Etc.

So, what is it that worked for you? Sometimes provoking people makes them think and look for reasons why they believe... and sometimes people are lead through rationality via that path-- former ministers who became atheists often do so because of something like this coupled with a passion for truth... for others, it's a slower gentler route... I couldn't make sense of religion... and science made ready sense... and eventually I realized I no longer believed... and that people who believed were always nebulous about what they believed.... and that was because to give a voice to whatever it is they believed was to sound like a woo, I suspect. Believers do sound "stupid" to me... brainwashed... cultist... the vocal ones, anyhow. Understanding genetics and evolution made me really understand how creationists are lying to themselves and others keeping people from knowing some things that humans are really privileged to know-- stuff like "you and your pet have a common ancestor back in time... and that the last common ancestor of dog, cats, and humans is the same for all dog, cats and humans...as we all trace the same steps backwards in time!" That's way more unifying than any religion--and way more marvelous. Shame on those who'd lie to keep people from learning this amazing fact.

My dislike of religion is because it keeps smart people ignorant and trusting people fearful while making some men terribly arrogant and judgmental and oppressive and divisive. Look at Fnord's posts. How many young people are growing up to be Fnord or DOC or Iamme or Plumjam? And religious people as well as stupid people (not mutually inclusive but a lot of overlap) spawn more and infect their spawn with their memes when they are young and trusting ruining their ability to think critically in the future.

It was hard work for me to work my way out of this... I hope to make it easier for others... So, what is it that worked for you?

 

[DARK LORD XENU]

Even though I agree with some of the argument Articulate put forward I just have 1 question for you Articulate.

How does the big bang theory and the theory of evolution make more sense on their own over God being in the equation some where?

Or in other words why does the big bang make more sense than Genesis and the story of creation?

 

[biomorph]

Even though I agree with some of the argument Articulate put forward I just have 1 question for you Articulate.

How does the big bang theory and the theory of evolution make more sense on their own over God being in the equation some where?

Or in other words why does the big bang make more sense than Genesis and the story of creation?

damn! i've run out of peanut butter...............

 

[articulett]

This can be said of many things. Political beliefs, fashion, commercial products. Don't you yourself want everyone to think rationally? Wouldn't you want that idea to "breed," to "infect" everyone? A pluralistic society requires an open marketplace of such ideas.

Granted some are more controversial than others, some even dangerous. But the "live and let live" belief does not mean letting someone else's ideas trample you at will. It means allowing those ideas their breathing room up until they interfere with your right to live as you would.

Live and let live, in other words, is not a "passive" strategy. It's a way of marking the boundary between when to act and when to let slide. If religious belief in principle crosses that boundary for you, I'd argue your boundary is too constricted.

I think all of us "militant atheists" have a live and let live in our daily lives... but we also notice that when we are continually silent or deferent we are encouraging this idea that "faith is good"... and that is a dangerous idea... it can fester behind closed doors. Moreover, religious people start to feel entitled to rights they don't want to give non-believers or those who believe differently-- nativity displays on public property--10 commandments statues in courthouses, etc. It's insidious. Plus, no matter what you say bad about religion anywhere... there's a mad dash of people to silence you and pretend that you are damning ALL religion and that they are not all equally bad. We know that... but one can evolve into the other just by following the meme that "faith is good" or necessary for morality.... or the ticket to paradise. I don't want to support the notion that "faith is good" or a means of finding truth. I don't want to support this idea of an eternal soul that can suffer forever... it's manipulative... and hurts trusting people and intelligent minds. I don't want people thinking that other people or books or gurus have access to special divine truths that can only be found through subjective (and lazy) means-- like faith. I think truth is more important than faith and knowledge is equally available to everyone who has the brains to understand it.

It's a derail to pretend that those who think like me are lumping all religions in the same pot... we aren't-- but they all do claim to have divine truths and give adherents a sense of "knowingness" and imagined humility when neither is evident--plus it requires the very opposite of skepticism... it requires faith-- as though feelings and belief could lead to objective truths. It makes people subvert their own beliefs and will and moral leanings and imagine it comes from "on high". Yes, so many are harmless and even beneficial and comforting... yes, many people have come to need their faith... yes the moderates are better than the fundies-- but not to the fundies-- to the fundies the moderates are "less faithful"-- less saved-- and that is a rational position if one actually believes that faith is the key to salvation. Who wants to not have enough faith if it means that you get to live happily ever after?

And it ends up being hard to discuss these kinds of things because of the weird way people always change the conversation into this derail with the assumption that you are saying all religions are bad and evil. Most believers assume everyone is a believer--including me. You would never know by my actions that I'm an atheist... any more than you'd know that I don't believe in astrology. But on this forum, I assume that most people are atheists unless they want me to know otherwise. And religion needs no defenders--all religions have people willing to die for their faith... even atheists rush in to defend faith and demonize those who dare say anything bad about it. So many presumptions are made about those on this forum who speak like I do or Dawkins does or even the way Randi does. They hear radical invective when there is none and miss the far more offensive statements made by the few ardent theists who post here... or even the invectives and judgmental nastiness of some of the supposed non-theists who regular call people "god haters" and act like they are doing some "imagined" (always nebulous) damage to some "imagined" cause.

But the cause is truth--isn't it?... everything open for discussion and examination... no sacred cows. What is a fact and what is an opinion- What can be known with a high degree of certainty and what is an illusion or a fallacy in thinking-- what enhances human understanding and happiness and what decreases suffering, injustice, superstition, and oppression. How can we all know the amazing things that Scientists and magicians and neurologists and so forth are discovering about this world and humans and how we come to believe what we believe... how can we teach others... what is the value of critical thinking... what methods work best to raise up others and vanquish ignorance.

Lots of people feel that encouraging moderate type religions is the answer... to just pooh pooh the radicals and leave the nice ones alone. I leave all of them alone... until they infringe on me. But theists have a way of saying something that implies my agreement or that requires my deference or that vilifies my lack of belief-- even the "moderates". They do not give me the same freedom of opinion and speech that they take for themselves... they expect my silence while voicing their opinions loudly (see Unrepentant Sinner for example). On this forum, I don't like that people try to exhibit that same behavior. All of us experience it all the time in our real lives. I am not a radical or militant anything. I don't trod on anyone's rights... I respect peoples opinions to the same extent that they respect mine. And yet... even on a skeptics forum there's these vigilantes tsk tsking the nonbeliever or telling them to "tone it down" or accusing them of hurting some "cause" or implying that they are "militant" (ha!) and, always pretending that they are lumping all religion in the same boat and calling all religion equally bad or evil in order to avoid hearing what we are actually saying.

You are doing that. You are asking us to agree that some religions are better than others... we already agree-- but that diminishes our stronger belief that the "faith is good" meme is bad for humanity in general. It's a recipe for ignorance... the moderates encourage it's spread just as the radicals... and they give the radicals permission to say, "we are more faithful than you therefore we are better and more favored by god". Don't you see this? We're not destroying religion or bugging people... but we want no part of this paradigm... we want kids and other trusting people to question whether faith is a good way to know anything... whether anyone has a right to say they know what happens when we die. Silence and deference leads such people to trust that we agree with the paradigm... that everyone does. So, yes, many faiths are fine-- but the premise behind them--the sacred cow they support-- is dangerous. We can't get rid of it... but to us it always sounds like the apologists are asking us to prop it up. No thanks. I understand why people believe. I don't tell children that Santa is really their parents. But don't ask me to participate in the lie. I'm not doing anything militant by mocking religion on a skeptics forum and refusing to capitulate to this notion that we ought to support moderate faiths. I don't tell people in my real life they are stupid for having their beliefs or show hostility towards the faithful-- but I feel dishonest and a sense of revulsion when I'm asked to show deference or support for some faiths because they are more moderate than others. I don't support faith as a means of knowledge at all. I don't think the benefits of faith outweigh the harm it does to reasoning ability and the potential it has for abuse.

Sure, some people really feel that Peter Popoff heals them or that they are having religious ecstasy and communion with god... some people really feel their loved ones are watching over them and tweaking the laws of physics in their favor-- but I don't support the notion that this is respect-worthy because it makes people feel good.

 

[articulett]

Even though I agree with some of the argument Articulate put forward I just have 1 question for you Articulate.

How does the big bang theory and the theory of evolution make more sense on their own over God being in the equation some where?

Or in other words why does the big bang make more sense than Genesis and the story of creation?

God posits something more unknowable and complex than the big bang as the maker of the big bang... god basically puts "magic" as an answer to the questions we don't know... making it even less likely to ever find it out. What can any human know about an unknowable, invisible, undetectable, immeasurable god, after all.

If humans thought god made babies, they couldn't have made test tube babies or birth control pills and so forth... positing a "bigger unknowable" as an answer is never really an answer. It's a fake answer that feels good that never has to show any evidence in support of itself--just call those who question it "arrogant". Everything in science has to be supported by evidence... you can have gaps... but you can't fill the gaps with "magic" that can only be discovered by subjective means. Science like math is readily understandable no matter what language you speak... because the facts are the same for everyone.

I have a lot of understanding of science... as do most scientists... I understand how it works... you do too... if you fly in airplanes... or use the internet... you can thank science-- not prayers or magic or divinity. It's science that is responsible for all our real miracles and true knowledge--the amassing knowledge of mortals. Science is based on axioms... the very best explanation that fits the observed facts. We can say, "if this is true, then we should expect to see that"--and we do. But faith has no facts in support of it... it is all based on a very unsupportable assertion that some form of consciousness can exist (god, souls, thetans, angels, devils, engrams) that has no material brain. And then facts are retrofitted and selected to fit such beliefs. There is no real evidence to support this notion despite eons of humans believing variations on this thing just as there is no evidence to support that planetary alignment can affect human interactions. Not an iota of evidence! But we have lots of evidence as to why and how people believe come to believe such things... just as we understand why humans believed the earth to be flat and the center of the universe. We understand why we get it wrong... and science is the very best method of correcting those errors. Faith has no error correction mechanism... no evidence... no proof... it's the same as a myth or a fairytale or a delusion as far as the evidence is concerned... the same as beliefs humans had that have long been explained by more prosaic means.

But if people think that faith provides an answer... they cannot learn these facts. If people think that there are gods that need to be pleased to help crops grow... they aren't as open to irrigation techniques and other advancements of science and they are more prone to attribute a successful crop to the virgin they threw in a volcano last spring or the rain dance they did last week and failure of crop growth as gods being angered because of those damn secularists.

 

[DARK LORD XENU]

Fair point to make Articulatt and sorry for mispelling your name earlier.
I only asked the question because in my opinion the truth is smoe where in the gray area between say the Bible (or any other religion) and Science.

For example lets take the story of creation from the Bible and the theory of Evolution in my opinion the Bible expalins what God wanted to create and the Evolution explains how God may have gone about it.

Not to start an argument over this but thats my belief that Genesis and Evolution go hand in hand at least in some way to fill in gaps for the other.

 

[Mobyseven]

Were you trying to be insipid or does it just happen naturally when commenting on this particular subject?

We did atacoism here three years before you joined.

You're forcing your amegalospodist agenda on me!

The point is this - of course JREF is not an atheist forum. It is not a theist forum. It is not an amegalospodist forum. It is not an aalien forum (I think I need to think that one through a bit more...) It is a skeptical forum.

Through application of skepticism, we are able to conclude to the highest standards of evidence we can set that aliens are not and have not been visiting Earth. Through application of skepticism we are able to conclude that bigfoot does not exist. And through application of skepticism we are able to conclude that god does not exist.

Certainly, there are skeptics who are also theists. But they are not being consistent - they are not applying skepticism to their belief in god. Certainly a great many of them claim to be applying skepticism to their belief in god, but when they have to be specific as to how they are doing that, the process they describe is not skepticism. Indeed, it is often faith based and irrational - the very antithesis of skepticism.

So while you are certainly free to point out that the JREF is a skeptical organisation and not an atheist organisation, understand that I am also free to point out that consistent application of skepticism inevitably leads to atheism, and that I am free to tell people who say otherwise that they are wrong, and also explain to them why they are wrong.

To ask otherwise is to grant god beliefs a special status that they don't deserve.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Not to start an argument over this but thats my belief that Genesis and Evolution go hand in hand at least in some way to fill in gaps for the other.

Genesis is scientifically absurd and contradicts what we know from observation of facts.

 

[-Fran-]

You're forcing your amegalospodist agenda on me!

The point is this - of course JREF is not an atheist forum. It is not a theist forum. It is not an amegalospodist forum. It is not an aalien forum (I think I need to think that one through a bit more...) It is a skeptical forum.

Through application of skepticism, we are able to conclude to the highest standards of evidence we can set that aliens are not and have not been visiting Earth. Through application of skepticism we are able to conclude that bigfoot does not exist. And through application of skepticism we are able to conclude that god does not exist.

Certainly, there are skeptics who are also theists. But they are not being consistent - they are not applying skepticism to their belief in god. Certainly a great many of them claim to be applying skepticism to their belief in god, but when they have to be specific as to how they are doing that, the process they describe is not skepticism. Indeed, it is often faith based and irrational - the very antithesis of skepticism.

So while you are certainly free to point out that the JREF is a skeptical organisation and not an atheist organisation, understand that I am also free to point out that consistent application of skepticism inevitably leads to atheism, and that I am free to tell people who say otherwise that they are wrong, and also explain to them why they are wrong.

To ask otherwise is to grant god beliefs a special status that they don't deserve.

Well said!

And it doesn't mean that a certain group of skeptics are "out to get" the skeptics who are also theists.

 

[kmortis]

Well tell us... what sort of things worked for you... what sort of things made you "evolve"? And by the way... you seem to be getting more feisty and losing your apologetic leanings more each day... (you will be on Unrepentant Sinners spit-list yet.)

Um...actually, I left the fold in a two-staged process. When I started college, I realized that most preachers don't make all that much money, so I decided to go into engineering. Secondly, and here's where the misanthropy kicks in, I realized that I'm not much of a people person, and most people are liying asshats.

I wish I'd have had adults prodding my thinking in this direction when I was younger... because it seemed that everyone sort of agreed that religion was good or that it had some truth so I figured some adults must know something--but I also couldn't figure out why scientists weren't testing the various gurus (ala the MDC) since our collective ETERNITIES were supposedly at stake... what could be more important than ETERNITY... it's not the kind of thing you want to take a chance on believing the wrong thing about.

Oh, how do I agree with this. With my own kids, I try to tell them straight up what I think. Luckily, Mama Mortis is a Unitarian so me endorsing atheism isn't a big deal.

The whole notion caused me incredible angst. And so I don't want to be the silent adult that keeps some other trusting person trapped in this nuttiness in an effort to please the right invisible guy by believing the right unbelievable story with the right amount of fervitude...

Although Fnord and others would like to see this as hostility towards religion or god-- I see it as a battle for truth. That's what needs to be emphasized. We need to teach people to ask "how do you know"? Why do you think you can exist without a brain when you know that brain damage greatly diminishes who a person is? Etc.

Fervitude?

I'll have to disagree with you about Fnord. I don't thin he's as strident as what some have made him out to be. I've read quite a few of the exchanges between him and other posters and I think there's a lot of talking across each other going on.

So, what is it that worked for you? Sometimes provoking people makes them think and look for reasons why they believe... and sometimes people are lead through rationality via that path-- former ministers who became atheists often do so because of something like this coupled with a passion for truth... for others, it's a slower gentler route... I couldn't make sense of religion... and science made ready sense... and eventually I realized I no longer believed... and that people who believed were always nebulous about what they believed.... and that was because to give a voice to whatever it is they believed was to sound like a woo, I suspect. Believers do sound "stupid" to me... brainwashed... cultist... the vocal ones, anyhow. Understanding genetics and evolution made me really understand how creationists are lying to themselves and others keeping people from knowing some things that humans are really privileged to know-- stuff like "you and your pet have a common ancestor back in time... and that the last common ancestor of dog, cats, and humans is the same for all dog, cats and humans...as we all trace the same steps backwards in time!" That's way more unifying than any religion--and way more marvelous. Shame on those who'd lie to keep people from learning this amazing fact.

Honestly, it wasn't any external argument that got me to leave. Just humans being humans, really.

My dislike of religion is because it keeps smart people ignorant and trusting people fearful while making some men terribly arrogant and judgmental and oppressive and divisive. Look at Fnord's posts. How many young people are growing up to be Fnord or DOC or Iamme or Plumjam? And religious people as well as stupid people (not mutually inclusive but a lot of overlap) spawn more and infect their spawn with their memes when they are young and trusting ruining their ability to think critically in the future.

It was hard work for me to work my way out of this... I hope to make it easier for others... So, what is it that worked for you?

I sincerely hope that this is where your journey ends. You never know though, you could start having temporal lobe seizures tomorrow and have a Road to Damascus conversion to Sikhism.

What about the smart people who are still smart even thought they're religious? Like Francis Miller or Hal?

 

[articulett]

Genesis is scientifically absurd and contradicts what we know from observation of facts.

Agreed... the genesis story does not fit the facts any better than the myriad of other creation stories that humans have created over the eons... plus it involves a talking snake and eternal damnation for eating from the "tree of knowledge" which is somehow "atoned for" by the later blood sacrifice of a god who impregnates a virgin without her consent to make a carnal copy of himself to have killed for some bizarro plan that only makes sense to him.

or to put it differently (and to offend fnord who frequently offends me):

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

I know you were asking Articulett, and that you have one answer, but if I may try my hand at both your posts here:

Even though I agree with some of the argument Articulate put forward I just have 1 question for you Articulate.

How does the big bang theory and the theory of evolution make more sense on their own over God being in the equation some where?

Or in other words why does the big bang make more sense than Genesis and the story of creation?

Parsimony. It's a principle, much used in science, that in essence means that the least complex explanation is preferable to the more complex.

"The universe exists, and seems to have been existing for the past 13.7 bio. years" is a less complex explanation than "First there was god, then (13.7 bio. years ago) he made the universe". The first explanation says something about one entity (the universe), the second has two (god and the universe).

Fair point to make Articulatt and sorry for mispelling your name earlier.
I only asked the question because in my opinion the truth is smoe where in the gray area between say the Bible (or any other religion) and Science.

For example lets take the story of creation from the Bible and the theory of Evolution in my opinion the Bible expalins what God wanted to create and the Evolution explains how God may have gone about it.

Not to start an argument over this but thats my belief that Genesis and Evolution go hand in hand at least in some way to fill in gaps for the other.

I'm tempted to say that genesis doesn't appear to bring much to the table. Less and less, in fact, as we find out more about the world.

 

[articulett]

U

I sincerely hope that this is where your journey ends. You never know though, you could start having temporal lobe seizures tomorrow and have a Road to Damascus conversion to Sikhism.

What about the smart people who are still smart even thought they're religious? Like Francis Miller or Hal?

Well, it much more often goes the other way. And Hal is a deist... having moved from the position from a more theistic view... I think Francis Collins might be good because people don't want their kids to learn about evolution if it's incompatible with religion... but it really does render the "original sin" thing on which Christianity is base completely unlikely. Collins doesn't have good evidence for his faith--it's more about showing that science can't disprove it and an argument from "design"... There's other former agnostics or unchurched people such as C.S. Lewis and Anthony Flew who are trotted out over and over-- but as people become more scientifically literate--gods and the role of gods gets more and more nebulous... but that's weird too... because religions teach that "faith" is a test... and those who don't believe are minions or tempters of Satan... and the like... The moderates or evolutionary theists give the more radical theists someone to feel "better than"--more faithful than... someone who agrees in the idea of divine truths...

And just as no one is likely to ever win the challenge... I am pretty darn sure as are an increasing majority of scientists that gods, ghosts, angels, demons, souls, etc. and other "magic" are common and fairly easily explained human illusions. I think it's wise to prepare people to live with that truth and to enjoy the fantastic things we humans have been able to learn and discover and know for sure... the real miracles... the fact that we are all related... we share a common ancestor back in time and behind that most recent common ancestor-- all our ancestors are the same. And we can prove it... and show how closely various life forms are related... because they all are... we figured out DNA... we are the first life forms on our planet who can actually know why and how we got here... nobody could before...they had to trust authority figures who trusted authority figures based on speculation, stories, delusions, myths, confirmation bias, and who knows what else-- because some answer felt better than no answer. But now we have real answers. And we can prove those answers to anyone who takes the time to learn the facts... just like we could teach calculus to anyone who could learn the foundational facts needed.

What is happening to gods is that they are getting murkier as humanity realizes how little we can no about such things even if there were such things... and if we can't know, how can we trust another who tells us they do? We can't. And the world needs to train our future leaders to work in this real word and not act like primitive superstitious people that our ancestors were. It's-- uncivilized... stupefying... Moderate and murky religions don't bug me-- but I don't endorse the notion that it is good to "believe" or to have "faith" in higher truths. The real heroes are mortals--people accumulating knowledge and taking it further and doing good without threats of punishment and promises of eternal rewards. We evolved to feel good to be of service to others... religion hijacks this and pretends it is the reason for our goodness... and that everything good is due to invisible gods and magic and luck and faith and belief when it's more due to science and hard work and accumulated knowledge and coincidence and perspective...

Sure, I'd rather most people be deists than theists... or educated on evolution while believing in specific (and unlikely) gods written about in primitive texts... and I prefer moderates and those who keep their faith discreet to those whose god wants them to proselytize and follow blindly-- but... I want no part of any of it... I don't want to protect it for people... I don't want to be made to feel bad because I think it's primitive and ignorance promoting.

To me... faith is on par with being drunk-- do what you want... but don't drive and don't make me pay for or applaud your liquor indulgence. If you're having a happy buzz... I might feel happy with you or wish that I had a buzz or something-- but that's about it. That's how I feel about belief. I feel like they are all as "true" or useful as Scientology--more or less. There is no evidence for me to give any theism more respect than drunkenness or Scientology or astrology.... I'm not openly hostile to any of those either... but when I react similar dismissive of such things I'm not vilified the way I am when I do so with "religion in general".

I don't disagree with your approach... I just don't like when people try to draft me into it... it's not me... I feel like I'm propping up a harmful delusion--the notion that faith is a means of knowledge or that it's good for something.

 

[DARK LORD XENU]

I know you were asking Articulett, and that you have one answer, but if I may try my hand at both your posts here:



Parsimony. It's a principle, much used in science, that in essence means that the least complex explanation is preferable to the more complex.

"The universe exists, and seems to have been existing for the past 13.7 bio. years" is a less complex explanation than "First there was god, then (13.7 bio. years ago) he made the universe". The first explanation says something about one entity (the universe), the second has two (god and the universe).



I'm tempted to say that genesis doesn't appear to bring much to the table. Less and less, in fact, as we find out more about the world.

Ok fair enough you do not share my beliefs thats cool.
All I mean is that in my opinion even the Bible cant always explain stuff like where we are from what we are made from etc at the same time Science still cant answer all the questions either.

Example one day before the invention of the pocket watch or the wrist watch one day there was an explosion at a metal factory and as all the debris fell back to earth some of the debris landed in just the right spot in just the right way to accidentally create the worlds first watch without any one or any thing putting it together but it just happened!
Now that sound absurd to me as well I'm sue it is just as absurd to the rest of you.
That is why to me the big bang and evolution ON THERE OWN doesn't make any sense to me personally.

Not trying to say your wrong I just disagree that everything in the universe just fell together the way it has without being put together by a creative God in some way whether it happened the way the Bible depicts it or not.

As far as we know all along God may have been trying to tell us through Gods prophets on Earth that Darwin was correct in that we come from monkeys but it was probaply only Darwin who was smart enough to understand it at the time.

 

[DARK LORD XENU]

In fact I now would like to pose the question that I posed Articulett earlier to everyone on this thread to explain why the big bang makes more sense than the book of Genesis.

I think this would be a good debate.

 

[articulett]

You've just used creationist strawman argument-- Paleys watch... watches look designed... it's a common theistic backwards way of looking at it. And it's not at all in line with what science thinks. I'm not going to waste time educating you on this, but there are great answers on this thread regarding that long debunked straw man. To understand it, you might to unbrainwash yourself from your religious indoctrination a bit--but it's worth understanding if it's not too late.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94834

 

[JoeEllison]

In fact I now would like to pose the question that I posed Articulett earlier to everyone on this thread to explain why the big bang makes more sense than the book of Genesis.

I think this would be a good debate.

Only a "good debate" if you're new to the Internet and/or still in high school. Otherwise, you might as well be taking the "flat earth" position in a debate. You have already lost, and a quick Google search will save you bunches of time.