I also rather enjoyed John F. Haught’s “God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution.” He rightly points out how lousily religionists argue against evolution when its obviously occurred.

He also shows how the supposition of scientific thinking people that evolution has taken God out of the equation is biased and wrong headed thinking as well.

He tries to take a middle road between the two approaches. I thought he did a bang up job. A “big bang” up job – GRIN! Sorry I just couldn’t resist ya know…….

Best,
Kerry

Have you not heard of Google ads?

Do you not know how they select ads?

It is contextual, it scans the text of each page and delivers ads based on the conversation.

Go to other articles on IdahoFallz.com and you will see different ads related to those subjects.

“Is this site publicly funded at all? Are any tax dollars used to support this site?”

ROFLOL Ahem, no, this site is not publicly funded, it is privately and poorly owned, thank you.

Tax dollars, that’s funny.

“Creation or Evolution? Is evolution just a theory? You can prove creation. Order free booklet!”

and

“Evolution is a Lie
Free short video shatters evolutionary theory”

What kind of false religious propaganda is that noise? Is this whole site just a front to promote religious dogma? Why are there evangelical fundamentalist ads all over the place on this site! Is this site run by that lying “think-tank” the Discovery Institute or something? Just on those two, for example. What completely false advertising! PROVE creationism? EVOLUTION is a LIE? Is this bizzarro-world or something where everything is opposite of what it actually is?

This offends and angers me! In the comment rules, it protects criticism of religion, and on the SAME DAMN PAGE, has ADS that I assume this site gets PAID for displaying that CLEARLY are religiously biased, promote religion, and full of lies and falsehoods. What’s up with that?!?! Is this site publicly funded at all? Are any tax dollars used to support this site?

Also, #5 in the terms of use “5. No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.”

So, I guess the only religious proselytizing that can be done are all the ADS posted everywhere! What blatant hypocrisy!

You wrote -

Gypsy – pick a side my friend! Haven’t you heard? We’re in a war. You’re with us or against us. No sittin on the fence. Do you want to embolden the terrorists? Don’t be unpatriotic. Embrace your atheism!

I write -

I’m not atheist!

To some, I’m worse than an atheist – I’m one of those the bible says should not be suffered to live.

I do however promise not to turn anybody into a toad for not joining my faith choice, and since I believe “hell” is in the mind of the beholder – I shan’t be casting any of ye into outer darkness either. You can do that on your own, or not, as you like.

You’re welcome!

I’m just enjoying this debate.

There is a difference between objective argument and subjective put-down, right? We’re trying to reduce and eliminate the subjective put-downs, but your speech is protected when delivered as an objective argument.

Kind of the difference between saying you think a religion is misguided because of x,y,z vs. saying people believing in a religion are (insert common derogatory term here).

The subjective put downs will be eliminated, objective intellectual points will be kept. They can be objectively refuted, and therefore add to the discussion value.

Subjective derogatory terms really cannot be objectively refuted.

Does that help?

Great post, as always. I’m sorry to see your comments censored. Apparently Joe is leaning in the same direction as our home town paper, in that he feels that those with faith are more deserving than those of us without it. But I suppose if that were true he wouldn’t have censored Kerry Shirts in the religion blog. At least he’s attempting to be impartial. It’s just going to be difficult to select the right words without ruining the content from here on out.

I am reminded, by your post, of the debate between Alan Dershowitz and Alan Keyes a few years back in which the subject of morality and religion were debated. It was so good I bought the tape. I would be glad to loan it to you if you haven’t already seen it.

A tip of the hat to you my friend, you are the voice of reason in an otherwise complacent world. I’ll raise a toast to you at the local watering hole this evening.

Best Regards,

Meso

#2. Do not personally attack, name-call, put-down, or bait other guests, races, genders, or religions.

So, the mod is just doing what they’re supposed to. But, my point still stands that the end of #2 protects religion from criticism.

For Snackpak: Well, it was a verrrrry long post. I suppose I should be grateful it was only edited 5 times.

“There is no way around the fact that I’m advocating a certain kind of intolerance, but it is not political intolerance. I’m not saying that people should be jailed for their religious beliefs. I am saying, however, that certain beliefs are so lacking in merit that there should be no question of our “respecting” them. People who claim to be certain about things they cannot be certain about should meet resistance in our discourse. This happens quite naturally on every subject but religion. For instance, a person who believes that Elvis is still alive is very unlikely to get promoted to a position of great power and responsibility in our society. Neither will a person who believes that the holocaust was a hoax. But people who believe equally irrational things about God and the bible are now running our country. This is genuinely terrifying. We must find a way of criticizing and marginalizing bad ideas, even when they come under the cloak of religion.”

There are so many places, not just this website, where criticism of religion is censored or deleted.

I am not a diplomat. Nor am I a weak politically correct drone. I write what I think and feel. The fact I was edited shows this idea that Sam is talking about, where religion is protected from criticism, and we are told that it must be “respected”, when in fact it is so deserving of our derision.

I’m very happy to see that people did in fact respond. Meso, glad to see you back and in the conversation. Homeslice, thanks for the compliment… I hope you say more in your next post. ooh_child, Bobbie Sue, keep fighting the good fight with logical questions. Gypsy – pick a side my friend! Haven’t you heard? We’re in a war. You’re with us or against us. No sittin on the fence. Do you want to embolden the terrorists? Don’t be unpatriotic. Embrace your atheism!

The rest of this I guess is for JeremyPlo. Since you have the longest posts, this may take a while.

Where to start?

Let’s start with the Ink and Blood exhibit. You say it is unfair of me to categorize it as a glorification of the Bible. In response, the simple fact that there IS a traveling exhibit of it would tend to prove my point. Also , you enthusiastically defend it and the supposed “good” it has done. I ask you — does your exhibit show the negatives associated with the Bible, or just the positives? Is there anything in the exhibit that tells of the massive suffering that book of fairy tales has caused? If so, then I stand corrected. If not, then my original premise is valid in saying that the exhibit “glorifies” the Bible.

It is quite true, and we can agree that the Bible has done it’s share to shape our world moreso than any other book save perhaps the Koran. I would be quite foolish to say otherwise, wouldn’t I? While I concede that point, I say to you that much, if not most, of that history-shaping has in no way been good. In your post, you focus on the perceived “good” the Bible has done, and nothing else. You are picking and choosing what you want to present, and ignore the ugly pink elephant in the room, which is the violence, murder, sexism, bigotry and intolerance the Bible, Christianity, and religion has caused, and continues to cause. I like the works of C.S. Lewis, Shakespeare, Tolkien, etc… as much as the next person. However, the appreciation of art and literature that has been inspired by faith in no way makes the Bible, or the ideas expressed in the Bible true, moral or useful. They are completely separate things, and cannot be used to prop up the Bible as necessary.

Yes, I say religion is “inherently wrong or wicked”. For good reason! It’s based completely on faith and superstition– the belief in something without any evidence. It teaches people to ignore reason, to not deal with reality, and to not think rationally for themselves. ****** EDITED BY SITE MODERATOR ******* (Which I will address forthcoming).

Here’s a quote from Dawkins that I have always liked:

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”

And another good one:

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

Onward!

You speak of many famous characters – Ghandi, Mother Theresa, etc. and the good they’ve done in God’s name. ooh_child made my point for me in saying that anyone can do good, and in fact, I will go further to say that if someone DOES do good without religion, what they do is much more noble. Why? Because religion teaches people to do good for 2 reasons: #1, Fear. Fear of what will happen to you after you die if you don’t. And #2. The promise of reward after death. To do good, not because you’re worried about an invisible father figure looking over your shoulder, but because of your own altruistic instinct is much more noble. It is also more noble to do good without hope of reward.

Is good done in the name of religion? Most certainly. Is it all done for the right reasons? Not by a long shot.

This next part is going to be enjoyable.

I love it when religious people trot out the “God is outside of time” argument. I really do. ****** EDITED BY SITE MODERATOR ******* Augustine (about 1700 years go) is credited with the “revelation” i.e. he was the first to make it up, that God is outside of time. This gives religious apologists the ultimate “out” for having any kind of rational discussion. To paraphrase Dawkins again, they just declare by fiat that God is outside of time. No evidence. No logic. No credit to the fact that even modern human beings have no way to even conceptualize what that even means, let alone some brainwashed monk 1700 years ago. Yet, they trot it out anyways as a big “Aha! Trump Card! I win!”. Have you ever noticed how condescendingly they do it too? Gosh, that’s aggravating. “Now, you see little boy, what you’re not understanding is, you have to accept my made up bit of nonsense to understand God.” Pffft. And you wonder why atheists see you as anything but delusional?

For the record, I am a big fan of Dawkins and Harris, because they are leaders in the fight against religious delusion currently, and their books are so helpful in sharpening my ideas into statements that help defend my beliefs. Being an atheist, and ranting on internet websites is not my #1 purpose in life, and does not consume my days. For them, well, right now that is pretty much their job, and they’ve had years of study and experience to refine their arguments. So if I lean on them for help to explain things, I make no apologies for that. The best part: they use logic, fact, science, moral philosophy and rational argument to make their points. They are much more credible than using faith, superstition, 2000+ year old texts and the “I just believe it’s that way” excuse.

Continuing…

I bristle when I come to the next part, which is a Christian’s idea of what evolution is. The simple use of the words “ACCIDENT” and “CHANCE” are red lights ****** EDITED BY SITE MODERATOR ******* when it comes to evolution. And then you have the gall to use the words “childish” when your explanation is this invisible super-being is to blame or credit for everything! God has been used an excuse for human ignorance since the concept was ever made up! And not just the Christian God, every God! Whatever primitive people didn’t understand, like say, lighting, has been credited to God.

Here’s a quick link to the entire “God of the Gaps” theory, which JeremyPlo freely admits he believes in. “The inconsistencies between what we know about our reality and what we think we know are too far gaps for me to leap – and, at least for now, the bridge that closes that gap is God”

I’m not going to post the whole thing here. It’s worth reading though, and shows the continuing irrelevancy of religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Is your life enriched by religion? I’m sure you think so, and I’m sure that there may be many positives to your life. Has anyone seen the South Park episode “All about the Mormons?” Great episode. You should check it out. At the end, the little mormon boy pretty much says the same thing as JeremyPlo does, about “I don’t really care if it’s true or not, I have a great life.” (paraphrasing, since I can’t post the entire quote due to forum rules.)

The point is, that yes I agree that you can be religious and live a “moral” life… but that does not make an ounce of what you believe true. What it does mean is that your delusion is what is causing you to behave that way, not “God”.

****** EDITED BY SITE MODERATOR *******

A quick note: I hate the term Evangelical Atheist, because it denigrates Atheists.

And finally, (yes, this is a loooong post, and I’m almost done ranting – time to get back to work)

A quick note about the Bible.

It is often commented on that atheists really wonder if Christians actually know what the Bible says. It’s kind of funny, but in the last year or so as I’ve seen Harris and Dawkins debate other people, and point out the horrific tales, and supposed “morality” of lets say the Old Testament, the religious people get pretty shy and tend to say, “Oh, well, we don’t believe in the OLD Testament.” Well sorry guys, is the Bible the word of God or isn’t it? The Old Testament and the New Testament are all part of the same book. And, if indeed, you PICK and CHOOSE which parts to believe, and choose which parts are supposed to be taken literally, and which ones are supposed to be mythology, or allegories, or whatever, then you cannot claim that any of the book is “true” or “factual” or even relevant. What is relevant is your mechanism for CHOOSING which parts of the Bible you think are valid and moral. EVERY (sane) person has that capability. Religion is in no way necessary to be a moral person.

I also hear this argument that science cannot explain or give reasons “why” to so many questions. Well, duh! That’s not it’s role. Science in itself is neutral. But, it can certainly prove a large part of religion wrong. Moral philosophy (which is older than the Bible) is the best field in which to find answers to “why” for many questions. Astronomy, genetics, meteorology, geology, cosmology and biology all have their own parts to play in explaining the world and the universe. Religion retards their advancement. That needs to stop, and the way to stop it is to call out religion for what it is: ****** EDITED BY SITE MODERATOR *******

That’s the end of the rant. Here’s a footnote though that I wanted to include from Sam Harris. It’s a bit political too, but has to do with stem cell research and the supposed “morals” of Christians, and illustrates how religion and religious thinking slows the progress of humanity, and also shows the hypocrisy of a supposed “moral” religious stance.

“Embryonic-stem-cell research is one of the most promising developments in the last century of medicine. It could offer therapeutic breakthroughs for every human ailment (for the simple reason that stem cells can become any tissue in the human body), including diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, severe burns, etc. In July, President George W. Bush used his first veto to deny federal funding to this research. He did this on the basis of his religious faith. Like millions of other Americans, President Bush believes that “human life starts at the moment of conception.” Specifically, he believes that there is a soul in every 3-day-old human embryo, and the interests of one soul—the soul of a little girl with burns over 75 percent of her body, for instance—cannot trump the interests of another soul, even if that soul happens to live inside a petri dish. Here, as ever, religious dogmatism impedes genuine wisdom and compassion.

A 3-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The embryos that are destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all. The truth is that President Bush’s unjustified religious beliefs about the human soul are, at this very moment, prolonging the scarcely endurable misery of tens of millions of human beings.”

I thought I’d just throw that in as food for thought.

Thanks for reading, and I hope some of you got some enjoyment from it.

-MasterVodo

Kerry:
The world renowned, and well decorated degree holding scholars (between them both a mastery of over 20 languages), Mercea Eliade and Joseph Campbell is the corrective to such invective against the truth of what mythology is, and is all about. Your view is woefully inadequate.

What you fail to realize is that the stories *are* the way to understand the truth from all the myths.

Best,
Kerry

Let me explain how I understand that certain types of Christian thinking could integrate evolution and creation.

On the first “day” (left up for interpretation) deity created light, the next day deity created water and earth, the third day deity created grass, trees, flowers, etc.

And so it goes. From an evolutionary standpoint, that can certainly make sense (especially if one thinks in terms of the biblical creation story MYTHOLOGICALLY). Evolutional theory suggests that there was mass, then form, then creatures, etc. Each “day” biblically could be (for example) viewed as a slice in time of a million years or more.

In most creation myths that I can think of off the top of my head right now – deity or deities created the world and all its inhabitants by various strokes of “evolvement”.

That’s how I can see where some Christians can integrate their creation story with evolution. Some can’t – one example being those who claim we could not have evolved from apes – but not ALL Christians are opposed to the idea. One I know of suggests that “God created apes then from that form created humans in His image”.

I believe that when stories are left open to interpretation that a good, solid, healthy imagination can make ALL kinds of connections.

I see nothing “fairy tales are for kids” about that. Fairy tales are often for adults too – Star Wars is a good example, the classic story of light battling dark. Fairy tales teach, explain, and intergrate an understanding of the world.

As you may recall, originally classic fairy tales (before they were beaten into submission by Disney or Christianized – making all the wise women into bad witches, for example) were used as teaching tools – in a time when most did not know how to read. Adults and children alike sat by campfires and heard tales about Boogeymen, Creation, Animals who talked to Humans. In my way of thinking, it would have been a most excellent way to learn!

I’m a fan of fairy tales. I think in our stark reality we REALLY would do well to consider the value in them.

I’m not a Christian, never have been, and in all reasonable liklihood never will be, but I see a lot of value in the biblical stories (I read them AS stories, not as Literal Truths). I think most times those of us non-Christians who have trouble with Christians are simply speaking two separate languages of “Truth”. If we can take the “T” out of truth and turn it into a Tool of Transformation – then we could all risk learning something new and integrative!

As you remarked the universe is a vast place of which we probably have merely a tiny glimpse. It is in that glimpse that myths live and breathe. That’s what I enjoy contemplating.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Wow, I don’t feel like the lone black-sheep of the family anymore. I just got back into town and jumped on this thread to see some great new posts. Yours was a breath of fresh air, I must say.

Speaking of the immensity of the universe, the farthest visible objects in our universe happened approximately 14.5 Billion light years ago. At the rate our universe is expanding, those visible objects (assuming they are still around) are now more than 42B light years from us in actual distance. If 14.5 B light yrs. is just the observable portion of our universe, it begs the question: how much of it can’t we see? And if this is but one in countless universes (multiverse), which many physicists propose, then the distance to the next universe is not even reachable at the speed of light because the space between us is expanding faster than the speed of light. Many physicists suggest that selection is responsible for Many of those universes that have survived long enough and with just the right variables to have produced intelligent life (like ours) with the ability to comprehend, even in a small way, the enormity of it all…and perhaps ask some of the questions posed here.

Gypsy, you had an excellent post (#58). I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to see posts like yours. I had almost given up hope that there were people like you and MVodo around. Thanks for taking the time to express yourselves.

Gypsy, there’s one thing bothering me. You say you agree with your Christian friends who haven’t a problem integrating evolution and creation mythology. These folks are deluding themselves. It simply can’t be done; fairy tales and myths are for kids. We adults cannot afford ouselves the luxury of “warm fuzzy” feelings over stark reality.