On The Origin Of Species
Posted April 21st, 2008 by Da King
I've been hearing a lot of discussion about evolution and God lately. Much of it has been coming from atheists (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, the smirking moron Bill Maher). Some, like Maher, apparently feel the need to speak up and ridicule the Pope, who is in america preaching the Christian ethic of love and brotherhood (the pervert !). Since the vast majority of atheists seem to be liberal politically, for whatever reason, I find their motives curious. I mean, would liberals ridicule Martin Luther King's civil rights message today simply because King held a steadfast belief in God ? I don't think they would. I don't think they did in the 60's either. Yet these same people gleefully and maliciously trash the world's pre-eminent Catholic figurehead. Maher said the Pope "used to be a Nazi" (false) and called the Catholic church "a child-abusing religious cult" (false). There are about a billion Catholics in the world. They aren't child-abusers, but the smirking moron Maher doesn't mind offending every one of them. Worst of all, when Maher is called out for his hatemongering, he pretends he was just joking, which he wasn't. Coward. Maher has also slipped under the covers with some pretty strange bedfellows here, like the anti-Catholic televangelist John Hagee, who has called the Catholic church "a false cult system" and "the great whore" (I don't even understand that reference. Does it have to do with the Virgin Mary ?). There are crazies on the political right too. Hagee endorsed John McCain, an endorsement McCain now wishes he had renounced rather than welcomed.
I don't understand strident atheism. How can one be so forceful about a belief in nothing ? Albert Einstein once said atheism wasn't a belief system, it was the abscence of a belief system. While I perfectly understand agnosticism, which says "I doubt, I don't know", atheism attempts to close the book on God. An earthling is wholly incapable of closing that book. It's beyond our capability. Seeing as how we are an infinitesimal speck in the grand scheme of the universe, the enormous presumptuousness of the individual atheist makes me want to burst out in laughter. All it takes for me to discard atheism is to walk outside and observe the grandeur of nature. The awesomeness of creation alone gets my mind to wondering about a higher power. I have always thought it rather logical that creation implies a creator. What I find absolutely illogical is the idea that all this happened by some random collision of atoms, some cosmic accident. That notion brings to mind the odds of putting a chimpanzee in front of a typewriter and hoping he randomly types the collected works of Shakespeare. I wouldn't bet on it. Even on the remote chance that this is all the result of random atom collisions, where did the atoms come from ? If the universe was created by a Big Bang (a reasonable theory), what caused the Bang ? And furthermore, how did the Bang result in LIFE ?
Aha ! The atheist will then explain Charles Darwin's Theory Of Evolution (another reasonable theory) to the backward God-squadders who are still living in caves and rubbing sticks together to make fire. Darwin's theory tells us how life evolved from single-celled creatures all the way up to human beings over millions of years here on earth. The problem is, Darwin's theory doesn't tell us how life began. It doesn't even try to. Even Darwin admitted he couldn't answer that one, and neither can the eminent atheist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, author of the book 'The God Delusion'. When Dawkins is asked how life began, as Ben Stein asked him in Stein's movie 'Expelled" (I haven't seen the movie, but I've read reviews), Dawkins says he doesn't know, and then he starts talking about extraterrestrials seeding life here on earth. Of course, Dawkins has no evidence of this, but even if we were to make that leap of faith with him, it would only beg the question, who created the extraterrestrials ? And on and on it goes. There is another problem with using evolution as the explanation for how life began on earth. The fossil record itself doesn't really support the notion. Rather than the slow, steady transmutation from one species into another over the course of millions of years that you'd expect to see in a purely evolutionary world, the fossil record instead appears to show the sudden arrival of all kinds of different complex species at roughly the same time. This is known as the Cambrian explosion.
In conclusion, atheists, before you go around parading your "superiority" and ridiculing those who think differently than you, just please admit that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's just your opinion, which is worth no more than anyone else's opinion. I'd suggest a little of that alleged liberal tolerance, love of free speech, and promotion of diversity is in order. Ditto for you believers in religion, of course. It's live and let live (as long as your religion isn't trying to crash planes into buildings or strap bombs to teenagers). Peace out. God is great.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:34 am
King–You are a human being who lives and dies. You have a hard time imagining forever because in our experience, we live; we die. Perhaps nothing ever had a beginning and has no end. What that 'no beginning' looks like or 'no end' looks like in this enormous universe is not relevant.
You and I only have our human senses to determine our view of what is. Our senses do not cover the entire spectrum of what can be seen, felt, sensed. We have a brain that has only sight, sound, smell, taste, reasoning, thinking to the future, to the past.
Perhaps some gorillas mixed it up with some aliens way back—who knows? Who cares? Maybe this magical, wondrous God snapped his giant fingers and WA LA—humanity. Maybe it was her fingers, instead—after all, did you know that all human fetuses start out as females, until they differentiate within a month or so, due to the effect of the hormone testosterone—in other words, we really do all start off as females in utero—so much for Adam and Eve and that apple some male God made a big issue out, that is if you believe the scientists have it right.
I am an agnostic—I do not know for sure whether there is some unifying creative force called God that is self-aware or whether just the forces of the universe with its somewhat universal laws (such as gravity) work to combine the elements we are all made of into a cohesive , living thing.
Most days I believe in God, mostly because I prefer to believe in a God—there is a great security and personal power in just that. I do not care to share it, or disperse it to others, nor do I know with certainty that I am right. It does not matter to me nor in the scheme of things.
What atheists are trying to do, I think, is shine a light on the inadequacies of religion as a force for making the world right.
It really is the simple commandment to "Love Thy Neighbor" that is so golden—if everybody loved their neighbor like themselves, then the whole world would love each other enough to share resources, plan for the future together, take care of our home earth, and so on.
So in my eyes, religion is not really necessary in order to achieve God's commandments, or really, just the ability for us all to "Love One Another".
April 21st, 2008 at 9:09 am
Eve, you said: "So in my eyes, religion is not really necessary in order to achieve God's commandments, or really, just the ability for us all to "Love One Another"."
I wonder how an atheist who doesn't believe in God could accept God's commandments as something other than some words that men made up to help them control people through the other religious beliefs they made up. In other words there is no God to Bill Maher so there are no commandments from God.
This is a very profound field of thought and nobody has proved any part of it other than with faith. That is faith in existence of God for some and faith in non-existence for others. I know some people who claim to be atheists but who manage to claim certain God given things for the existence of human beings. Wait an hour or two and sure enough one of them will be popping up in this comment section arguing about the non-existence of God that he can't prove and knows it
April 21st, 2008 at 9:25 am
Maher is not a liberal. Maher is a snotty "libertarian", and that means Conservative/Republican. The schnozz voted for Bob Dole for President.
He introduced Ann Coulter to the viewing public! I know, I used to watch Maher's show on Comedy Central and broadcast Tee Vee.
And his snotty comment that got him thrown off the air was a dig at President Clinton. He said that Qaeda was willing to give their lives, but the Americans would only go as far as lobbing some pilotless cruise missiles. Inferring, of course, that the USA should have sent in the CIA or the Rangers or the Marines to bust Al Qaida.
Of course, the Chamberlain-ian Republicans would have criticized President Clinton had he gone after Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They would have said: "That's not a prudent use of the American military" or another of their other propagandist messages that they used to POLITICIZE THE WAR ON TERROR even before the Bush-idiot got into power.
Remember the accusations of "wag the dog" ?? That is exactly what the Republicans were doing then.
Republican obstructionism was an enabler of the rise of the Islamic extremists.
+
|
And let's talk about being with God. If you want to be with God, you have to act with compassion, honor and charity. The shift of Christian voters from the Republican party to the Democratic party says a lot. They have judged *your* party on lying, stealing, and warmongering and you came up woefully short. And I don't mean all of the Christian voters, but I do mean enough.
See you in November.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:34 am
Ghost—Because that little, golden rule came along way before religion, no doubt from various places among various tribes of people—it did not originate with religion nor in one place with one person having a thunderbolt of forward thinking.
What is ungodly to you about a belief that perhaps humankind developed rules before the written word, before even the spoken word or before the notion of a "god"?
What is ungodly about that perhaps the hand of God is the hand of evolution?
As for atheists, some of the best people I know are atheists, and they spend their free time helping feed the hungry off the streets–but make no bones about it nor tout it as proof of their godliness, nor care whether this gets them the ticket to heaven—because they are living in the now, as good, decent people who do care about their fellow living beings.
On the other hand, some of the most supposedly godly men of the cloth have "come on" to me, in my innocence and belief that they were men of "god"—many times over, of all faiths—and they were all but one, married, upstanding men —in this fair city, I might add. And when I say "come on" to me, I mean they asked me for sex. Someday I will write a book about many things—but I won't smear them while they are still living.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:35 am
I meant roys old boy in previous post.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:33 am
My head is spinning.
April 21st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
No larry d. I didn't mean roys old boy *that way*—I don't think he's a man of the cloth…yet. I meant that the salutation was meant for roys old boy —not Ghost.
Good laugh , tho'!
April 21st, 2008 at 12:27 pm
In fact, that was the best laugh I've had in at least a year…thank you, larry d. I can feel the endorphins coursing through my body…I hope ol' roy doesn't take it wrong, nor Ghost…
April 21st, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Rubby, just popped in to say hey, how y'all doing. I see y'all are still going on about atheist liberals. (But for equal time, y'all throw in a right wing kook, but at least that wing nut has religion.)
Oh well, I'd be disappointed if y'all were to change.
Yup, all us "other" un-American Americans wouldn't be liberals if'n we weren't all anti-God, anti-flag, anti-Mom and apple pie.
Honestly, where do y'all come up with this stuff? Fox News?
As for me, shucks, I believe in God. I just think he's an under-achiever.
I mean, how else do y'all explain George W. Bush's presidency?
P.S. to Roy — good to see y'all are still at it!
Gotta go. Work is a bear these days. See y'all!
April 21st, 2008 at 7:52 pm
And for God's sake Rubby, God doesn't play politics.
It's kinda lame to suggest He does. Kinda undermines your point about atheist liberals.
Sniffle. We are as God made us.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Eve, I was concerned that you were after Ghost and he hadn't even posted in this set yet. Somehow I knew that you were talking to me since you were obviously answering me.
I do have a problem figuring how the "Golden Rule" which does exist in many other religious groups than just Christian but it bothers me when you say: "So in my eyes, religion is not really necessary in order to achieve God's commandments, or really, just the ability for us all to "Love One Another".
You are saying that the Colmmandments which I know 10 of are the same thing as the "Golden Rule" and I know better. I don't mind that men of the cloth have "come on to you" since I don't know you but you must have something that they really want a bit of since more than one or two seem to have done so. If I were a man of the cloth today I doubt it would happen with me since I am so old. (75) I guess only Christian clergy do that since I never hear it from any other religion. No I don't guess that at all because they are all human and have the same human frailties.
Atheists I have talked with have a tendency to talk about God's Commandments just as you do but I always wonder how this happens when there is no God.
We all know that all those Commandments were probably made by men and not passed on by God but how do we know, for sure, that the it didn't happen that way. It seems to me that atheists can't believe that but then they can't believe in God at all either. Somewhat confushing to me but it is fun to discuss these things with other people.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I remembe hearing in college in a Philo. class "it is better to believed and lost nothing than not and lost all" or something to that effect. The rest discussed in the class went over my head but that sounded damn good to me
April 21st, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Larry4 you old scutter. That was a word that Festus used for other people. How are you doing? I wonder if all these people know what your religious beliefs are based on. Maybe you should tell them some time, if you haven't.
Lots of court cases these days, huh? It is what puts money in your pockets I guess, or do you work on straight salary.
Somewhere in the area of crime I read today that Chicago has had a real crime wave of the gang type. It seems that based on population they had more than 3 times as many murders by gun in 2007 than New York City did. This I heard from a police spokesman from Chi town while he was talking about the 26 people shot in gang related shooting this weekend with 6 of them succumbing to death.
I guess New York has done quite a job of cutting down in this area.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:59 pm
"In conclusion, atheists, before you go around parading your "superiority" and ridiculing those who think differently than you, just please admit that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's just your opinion, which is worth no more than anyone else's opinion."
Whoa, whoa, whoa- only atheists do this? Please.
What's more, there are actual bad outcomes that result from religious fundamentalism. Homosexuals don't get the same rights as everyone else basically because of a religion that makes no sense. Evolution's being challenged not because there's any serious scientific dispute, but because some book written by primitive people living in primitive times decided to make up some Adam and Eve BS. Nevermind that evolution is a fundamental biological concept that might be nice to have a handle on if you want to study something bio-y.
These are not good things.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Larry4, you old dog, it's about time you stopped in here. You must be working too hard. Haven't you heard ? Obama's going to give us everything for free. No need to work hard anymore. We're moving into a brand new progressive era of sloth and freebies. It's called 'soak the rich'. Woohoo ! See ya at the beach ! I'll bring the government cheese !
As for atheists, I just made the observation that most of them were liberals. Don't you think that's true ? It seems that way to me, but I'm one of those bitter small town hicks that Obama talks about who clings to his guns and religion, so what do I know ?
April 21st, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Tom,
I know Bill Maher has called himself a Libertarian, but that's just because he wants drugs legalized. He isn't a Libertarian, he's just a stoner. Maher is a liberal, his audience is packed with liberals (they know their own), and 3 out of 4 of his guests are liberals. It's really pretty obvious.
Just curious. When you say "your party" to me, which party are you talking about ?
April 21st, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Brent,
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say only atheists do that. In fact, I specifically pointed out that the same holds true for religions.
I also made the point that religion can be used for bad intent. It isn't hard to figure that out in this day and age. It also has been used for many good things, such as feeding and clothing people. Any human institution has the potential to be misused, whether it's the church, the government, or even the Boy Scouts. Those aren't good reasons to abandon the entire institution. Those are reasons for reform.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 am
King: yeah, you hit the nail on the head on the institution part.
One of the more interesting fallacies atheists point to is the scientific argument in favor of atheism. But the fundamental problem is this: Hypothetically, one wouldn't be able to use human reason to understand the reasoning and ways of a supreme being.
The point is, as you have already summed up, this: No human will know whether or not there is a higher power until they day they die. Period.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:38 am
My mind on the subject isnt made up. I am going to see the movie.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:26 am
King, then it's barely worth mentioning. Congrats on nailing about two or three notable atheists, I suppose, but otherwise they're no different than anyone else.
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:26 am
King says, "As for atheists, I just made the observation that most of them were liberals."
That is an accurate observation. In fact, for most atheists, liberalism is their religion.
++++
Why do I think "Eve Speaking to Adam" is Rebecca in disguise?
+++
Ben says, "My mind on the subject isnt made up. I am going to see the movie."
I hope that movie is Ben Stein's "Expelled."
+++
Neo-Darwinism is the belief [or the hope of many atheists] that all life arose and then diversified itself due only to random chance & natural selection. Unfortunately for the evolutionists, this theory of materalism is being exposed by modern science to be a wrong.
As such, Neo-Darwinism is due to join those other 'scientific' frauds like those championed by Marx, Freud, Mead, and Kinsey in the dust bin of history. The only thing that keeps neo-Darwinism alive is the self-interest of the tenured faculity at our universities & colleges. Hence, see "Expelled."
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:52 am
Roy–Those "godly" men must have confused me with a "goddess"—however, you are correct—they were not all Christian—there were Jewish men of cloth, too–and other religious types and all colors, too. And, no, I was not in the sex business, either, nor worked with clergy in any capacity—but, from my experiences, I too discovered that men are men, no matter the title—and to this day, I am still discovering that. It is unbelievable to me that men, married and with title, and wearing golden crucifixes, will "come on" to me—lest I say anything further, or implicate anyone, I will say no more.
I have become a bit jaded, you might say. Oh well–that's life.
As for the Commandments–I imagine Moses (who I happen to be really related to, by the way) going up on that mountain (some recent Israeli research suggests that he was tripping on some sort of hallucinogen) and he comprised a set of rules that he thought would get "his flock of people" to submit to cohesion and start acting like adults with morals. Moses did not invent morals—morality existed before Moses, too. he chiseled them into stone (message being: these are solid rules to live by—pay attention) and brought them down—got angry, threw them, they broke, went back up…you know the story since you surly watched the Heston flick) Any way—he decided he would say that God wrote these rules in the stone—GOOD THINKING MOSES!!!! That way, the people would be more apt to obey him as he led them to freedom. Whether a god was involved or not—I don't think that really matters–not even to God—I don't think God has an ego. What matters is that we obey the rules governing relationships between humans and the planet on a wide scale so that we may live in peace. That would make God happy. God leaves it up to us. We are created in God's image, so we have the same reasoning abilities. God is not a magician.
Atheists are not denying there own atheism just because they choose these good enough rules to live by. They are only trying to be decent humans without a belief in a punishing, watching, over-involved, micro-managing God. I see nothing wrong with that. And since I don't think God has an ego—I don't really think God cares whether they "believe" in God or not.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:41 am
I don't believe mcnasty ever disclaimed Hagee's endorsement–in fact he was touting it.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:35 am
Eve, you sound so much like another woman I used to hear from regularly who was in love with her own physical being and was so very sure that every man who ever looked at her wanted her. Is it at all possible that you live in New York?
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:19 am
Roy—I am, even at nearly fifty, still a head -turner—why do I say that? Because I watch the heads turn—another thing—those men who come to me with their "golden crucifixes and are married, with title"—they usually have Bush bumper stickers on their cars, as well…But those men "of the cloth" I was talking about actually asked me for sex aloud—to my chagrin, as they were men who were supposed to be following those rules we talked about–you know—"Thou shalt not commit adultery—-I think they thought the rule said, "Thou shalt not admit adultery" instead.
Not kidding Roy, nor exxagerating, either. And no, I am talking about Akron.
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Rayy,
McCain did denounce Hagee's views. Here's a quote from McCain, made in march:
“We’ve had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee’s, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics. I sent two of my children to Catholic school. I categorically reject and repudiate any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic, both in intent and nature. I categorically reject it, and I repudiate it. And we can’t have that in this campaign. We’re trying to unite the country. We’re uniting the country, not dividing it. She [Pelosi] made the attack. I am responding by saying that I am against discrimination and anti-Semitism, anti-Catholic, anything racial, and I have proved that on the campaign trail."
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
[QUOTE Da King Says: ]
I know Bill Maher has called himself a Libertarian, but that's just because he wants drugs legalized. He isn't a Libertarian, he's just a stoner. Maher is a liberal, his audience is packed with liberals (they know their own), and 3 out of 4 of his guests are liberals. It's really pretty obvious.
[/QUOTE]
You know, you are not some kind of "King Ramses", King. You cannot just make something true by decree. Bill Maher is a Libertarian, not a Democrat. Maher said so himself.
April 22nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
You wrote,
"In conclusion, atheists, before you go around parading your "superiority" and ridiculing those who think differently than you, just please admit that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's just your opinion, which is worth no more than anyone else's opinion. I'd suggest a little of that alleged liberal tolerance, love of free speech, and promotion of diversity is in order. Ditto for you believers in religion, of course. It's live and let live (as long as your religion isn't trying to crash planes into buildings or strap bombs to teenagers). Peace out. God is great."
—end quote—
How old are you? Jesus. You write like a born-again 14-year-old girl, still giddy from that beacon of light you found in an all-teen Sunday school.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:34 am
Yes, Tom, I acknowledged what Maher says. However, you know the old saying, 'actions speak louder than words'. No Libertarian worth spit would vote for a big government liberal, and Maher advocates for liberals constantly. That isn't just my opinion. I've been a member of the Libertarian party. Go to the LP website and find out what they are all about if you don't believe me.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:41 am
Was it the 'god is great' comment that has your shorts in a twist, caz ? Or the fact that I don't think atheists have any special insight into the origins of the universe ?
And I'm actually a 14-year old boy. If I was a girl, this blog would be called 'All Da Queens Men'. Can't get anything past you.
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:28 am
So much error, so little time.
"I mean, would liberals ridicule Martin Luther King's civil rights message today simply because King held a steadfast belief in God ?"
I don't object to the Pope because he believes in God, I object to the Pope because he runs a corrupt, pedophilia cover-up business, has absolutely NO moral authority to speak to Americans and stretches the separation clause of the Constitution by rubbing too closely with our president.
Speaking of Catholics you say…
"They aren't child-abusers, but the smirking moron Maher doesn't mind offending every one of them."
You sound a bit like the Muslims objecting over the cartoons of Mohammed. And where is it written that Catholics should be immune from being offended? A Catholic who still devoutly supports an international business that rapes underage boys and covers it all up….needs offending.
" All it takes for me to discard atheism is to walk outside and observe the grandeur of nature."
Here, you stepped in it. When you see cancer afflicting children, when you 'walk outside", what's that inform you about a God? When you watch the tsunamis of the world drown tens of thousands, when you "walk outside", what's that tell you about a God?
So when the survivors of the Holocaust "walked outside" and observed nature, did their belief in a God strenghthen and did they simply discard the notion that no God existed?
Purely a subjective statement based on whim.
"What I find absolutely illogical is the idea that all this happened by some random collision of atoms, some cosmic accident."
I'll stop with this….I could write a short book on the material in your post here….evolution is based on natural selection, not randomness.
There seem to be two main choices. The magic books of myth and lore are true, factual and errorless…..or they're not. Scientific advancement has demonstrated clearly that the magic books are unreliable, contradictory and more often, simply wrong. It's all understandable given the scientific ignorance of the writer's day.
Scientists are virtually unanimous in their embracing of evolution. As science has gone about testing and verifying evolution, the magic books have been tested and found wanting.
Finally…history has also proven that religion poisons everything, God is NOT great, religion divides and kills and hates. It still is doing that today. Science enlightens, science makes progress, science unites us intelligently.
Where did the initial speck come from so that the universe could be?……Where did God come from? It's a wash at best and at least atheists trust in something we can see, even if it is a speck. Better than totally invisible.
There's much more here to deconstruct. I'll save it for a later post.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Golly Rev. Red, "scientists" swore with Algore that global warming was a serious truth and then they went with him and changed it to climate change. I wonder if they are prepared to agree with those scientists who now say that we are actually headed for another mini-Ice Age. Climate change could work either way.
Today I have read two things about the coming ice age that we are already in. It has something to do with sunspots or the lack of and they have a lot of proof and don't mention one word about carbon dioxide.
Now Red you are one of those who celebrated the Nobel Prize for Algore aren't you? Poor soul, both you and Algore.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:34 am
Rev,
Don't you feel the list bit ignorant to refer to the entire Catholic church as a pedophilia business ? If you don't, you definitely should, because that is a sweeping bigoted stereotype of breathtaking stupidity. And to hint that the Pope and Bush together is somehow an affront to the separation of church and state is kinda like world class stupid.
I knew I could count on you to display the exact air of atheistic superiority [based upon nothing] that was the centerpiece of my post. Thank you. You have no idea what you are talking about, yet you are still strident about it. You are just offering your opinion. If you can walk outside, and the grandeur and mind boggling complexity of nature doesn't give you pause, and perhaps lead you to consider that there may be a higher power at work, that is your right and you are welcome to it. However, there is nothing that makes your opinion the correct one.
I also challenge you to show me where I said anything that was anti-science. I don't believe you can do that. I certainly did not say I don't believe in evolution, as you seemed to suggest. The choice is not between God and science. That is your construct, not mine. I don't see why the two cannot co-exist quite nicely.
When I said, ""What I find absolutely illogical is the idea that all this happened by some random collision of atoms, some cosmic accident", you responded with, "I'll stop with this….I could write a short book on the material in your post here….evolution is based on natural selection, not randomness." But I was talking about the entire creation of the universe, not merely the ascendancy of man. Evolution has nothing to do with it. The order, existence, and complexity of the universe either happened entirely at random, or it didn't (intelligent design). You may believe as you wish, but again, it would only be your opinion. There are no facts to back you up.
And history does not prove that religion poisons everything. What a bankrupt concept. I could equally well say history proves that atheism poisons everything (the biggest mass murdering states in history (Stalin, Mao) were atheistic)). History actually proves neither proposition. What history proves is that man is imperfect. Religion (man-made and apart from the concept of God, if you haven't realized) is, among other things, a means to attempt to find moral order and meaning. Like any other man-made institution, religion can be used for good or bad, but I hardly think the big problems with America today are centered around church worship. I think a much stronger case could be made for the opposite.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Christianity does not poison things ….. but atheism sure does as shown by the Nazis, Mao, USSR, etc., etc.
And when you look at it, atheism is not so much a belief that there is no God but more a hope that there isn't One.
This hope is founded on the dual desire to be free of all moral constraints that the Creator has imposed and the subsequent judgment for failing to live up to the natural law that is imprinted on every soul.
Across the world, atheism is dying. Only in affluent societies can the foolishness of atheism exist, an affluence, i might add, brought about by Judeo-Christian principles.
So King, ignore the atheists. These lost souls foolishly think they can blot out the sun [Son] by throwing rocks at it. Let 'em keep throwing; the sun [Son] will keep shining.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Fiddlesticks.
April 25th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Here's the reason I object to your line of thinking here…
"I don't see why the two cannot co-exist quite nicely."
It's true, you probably can't see why.
And that's the problem.
Religion is based on the untestable. Religion cannot be tested through the scientific method. There's nothing to test. Religion is structured faith without evidence. Believing for no reason whatsoever.
Science is testable. Science is provable. Science is empirical and not based on faith…in any way. Just the opposite of religion.
How these can "coexist quite nicely", to me is oxymoronic. The two should never "coexist quite nicely". Science should have nothing whatsoever to do with religion in the same way science should have nothing whatsoever to do with astrology.
The only saving grace in America is that religion was given liberty, yet government was to have nothing to do with religion. In the same and proper way that science should have nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
April 27th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
King,
See Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" to learn how the atheists and secularists try to censor debate in the universities between Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design.
It seems the evolutionists are as totalitarian as Joe Stalin was.