Login

Join for Free!
118882 members


Bible vs Darwin

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Bible vs Darwin

Postby reetha25 » Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:45 am

[color=#FF4000]Religion is a primitive mans justice system, politics and science. 1000s of years before the Bible was written, you can find the same stories and cretures in other books that represented other beliefs The anti christ, noahs ark, demons, angels are just to name a few. The stories are the same, just changed the names and tweeked the story to fit their need. The Koran, the text that represents the Muslim cult has stories copied from other religions. Meca was a place of worship for 100s of different religions. It was here where people from the Muslim cult stole the term Allah from other religions. Allah started off as a female, god of the Moon. They tweeked it into a dude. Back then if copyright laws exsisted, some of these cults would not be around today.
-----------------------------------
reetha

[url="http://www.biology-online.org"]biology-online.org[/url]
reetha25
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:29 am

Re: Bible vs Darwin

Postby reetha25 » Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:03 am

[color=#FF0000][color=#FFFF00]According to a poll released by Harris, out of 2, 455 American citizens, 82% believe in God. From believing in miracles to heaven and Jesus himself, U.S. citizens have once again proven their religious fervor. This number is relatively unchanged from the same poll taken two years earlier.

An age-old argument, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution versus The Big Bang has been a topic of discussion for centuries. And despite technological and scientific advances in modern society, it is still a much talked about topic today.
----------------------------------------------------
reetha

http://www.biology-online.org[/color][/color]
reetha25
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:29 am

Re: Bible vs Darwin

Postby chadrickmcgowan » Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:35 pm

I would like to tickle your brains for a moment......... the basics of darwinism states that nothing new is created during evolution. Everything that is needed for another "transformation", if you will, is borrowed or stolen from somewhere else in life. BUT, it did not state where all of this came from in the first place. If darwinism is correct, we spawned from a single cell that replicated, but how did this cell begin? How were these proteins bounded together into a singularity that all of the sudden spawned life? I wish to pose the argument that evolution supports creationism, and merely explains the process necessary to create. Remember that the book of Genesis was NOT written during the time of creation, it was written long after. Does My Lord explain the beginning? The Alpha?
chadrickmcgowan
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:23 pm


Postby alextemplet » Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:01 am

Strictly speaking, no, the theory of evolution does not indicate how life began; however, that does not mean that sound theories do not exist. Experiments have shown that biological compounds can form randomly in nature, especially in the conditions that prevailed as the Earth was forming. RNA is especially important among these, as it has been shown to be capable of performing the additional functions of DNA and some proteins in addition to the roles traditionally associated with it. In fact, researchers at my university recently conducted experiments in which RNA was found to spontaneously isolate itself inside a phospholipid membrane; this could possibly explain the origins of the first primitive "proto-cells." RNA is also capable of surviving fairly well on its own, as the existence of viroids (basically similar to retroviruses but without the protein coating) testifies. An entire hypothesis called the "RNA world" has been built around these concepts, postulating that life may have begun with simple RNA-based organisms before evolving more complex DNA later. A quick search on Google or Wikipedia should provide some answers to your questions.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Re: Bible vs Darwin

Postby viloloco5 » Thu Oct 16, 2008 10:19 am

You know what, I would have a bit more respect (which i don't) for creationist if only they would denounce the idea of "intelligent design" to mean [other] than some falsehood "god".

If you believe "god" is real, that he created the earth,the wind,the sky,and the flowers -while attempting to use "KNOWLEDGE"(something evil,sinful) [in this case we're talking about science] as a means to quantify the existence of "god", than you've already shot yourself in the foot.

I don't believe scientist are necessarily opposed to the idea of "intelligent design" as long as it includes or is defined as: something that we can't phantom.
Something more plausible than "god"- more like an entire extraterrestrial civilization who's odds of contemporaneous existence is 100%.

I like many other rationalist believe that the "bible" or any form of out-dated source of government- is merely a very clever old method of philosophical govern.

It's merited with great amenity due to it's "philosophical" content(I.E selflessness) which is scattered in allegorical illustrations, fables, and prophecy.

The bible has long been deduced as merely man-made due to many coherently logical reasons.
One[1] reason being due to the fact that we know man is utterly, intellectually capable to develop a system based on philosophical means(I.E America) The founding fathers of the American Revolution to say the least.
Man has not only known to have already been capable of concocting such believes, but also able to doctor up more sophisticated forms of government also: Capitalism for starters.
The only difference is,the philosophical values of this type of government ideology is written in one pithy commandment: Self-preservation.
And unlike the dark-age methods of government, the capitalists' god is actually visible, it's called the dollar.

Tho, it's not yet 100% perfect,it surly does goads religion fundamentalist to sheer bitterness when they can't "stone" a homosexual with rights in this governing system.

In recent months, there has been a sharp increase in "atheist" due to the accumulation of scientific evidence which contradicts, or reproves the faulty claims made by creationist.

One idea the creationist use as a tool to persuade others is illustrating how evolution, by natural selection,is utter non-sense, and to prove it they've used this exact metaphor:

"If you ever go to south dakota, you'll most likely want to see Mt.Rushmore. When you go look at Mt.Rushmore, you'll see the faces of 4-death presidents that are recognizable to all americans, and prominent human figures to foreigners." "Contrasting Mt.Rushmore to the evolutionary theory is to say that the most recognizable figures on that Mountain were merely made by "chance", and not design." "If you look around Mt.Rushmore and see the amount of natural slated, cracked, perpendicular formations of rock; you'd think nothing of them till you glance at these well incredibly crafted faces on that same exact mountain." "To say the faces on that mountain were a creation of coincidence is to be irrational."


I've already made a counter argument for this one, but i want to see if anybody here wants to take a shot at it first?
viloloco5
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:33 am

Postby alextemplet » Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:25 pm

We call this a straw-man argument, Viloloco, and it's a form of illogic cloaked in "reason." I haven't seen anyone in this particular forum advance the Mt. Rushmore argument that you have set forth; perhaps you have, but it has not been mentioned here. This would be roughly analogous to an evangelical arguing against all of evolution based on the claims of social Darwinism. Not wise at all for two reasons. First, social Darwinism has never been advocated here; secondly, the truth or falsehood of the claims of a few does not affect the more common claims of the majority.

As for the Bible, you are right to describe it as a mainly philosophical book, but I do not think it fair to describe it as out of date. Philosophical systems do not go out of date quite so much as they fade in and out of use. Unlike hard science, the relative value of a philosophical theory is dependent almost entirely on personal opinion, and it is therefore unwise for anyone to make philosophical statements with any claims of established fact. I think there are certain elements of Biblical philosophy, particularly Christ's Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 and 6, that would greatly benefit the world today were it more widely implemented.

Lastly, I would like to ask you where you ever got the idea that knowledge is sinful? This is a completely new concept to me; in fact I am wondering if this may be another straw-man type of logical fallacy.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby biologist34 » Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:51 pm

I believe in evolutioın but completely apart from Darwin's.If i could be in his position i wouldnt have hesitetations like he had.As i remember he wrote some religious entrence or end of his one book.And after all science and religion war started.than all bacame problem.Better we dont mix this topic especially with religion;)
biologist34
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:30 pm

Re:

Postby viloloco5 » Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:58 pm

alextemplet wrote:Lastly, I would like to ask you where you ever got the idea that knowledge is sinful? This is a completely new concept to me; in fact I am wondering if this may be another straw-man type of logical fallacy.

Well, you pretty much started off ebulliently "sure", than died down to asking a simple question.
I'll just begin by answering your question first.

Why is knowledge sinful?
I'm not sure how well you are able to discern allegorical messages from biblical fables , but in case you haven't notice, all successful means of governmental philosophy have one crucial thing common,whether it be capitalism, communism, or even hinduism; that would be the need for cohesive cooperation.

There's many ways to achieve that, in capitalism, for example- the major component that keeps mutual cooperation amongst it's constituents is "capital" (money) which is ratified by means of satisfaction of it's potential in a capitalist government.
However, capital doesn't restraint you from exploring other sophisticated methods in which to obtain it (money),it's designed for cohesive cooperation,and it doesn't necessarily constrain you from expanding your mind to other miscellaneous activities, whether it's buffing up at the gym, or drinking your butt off at the bar.
That's where collective approval of capital govern philosophy is rooted,and why it's successful.

That's not true at all when subject to religion.
It's methodology for cohesive cooperation is a lot more sinister by it's very nature.
To understand how such an old govern philosophy, resiliently withstood the test of time, we must first take a very close look (read in between the lines) at it's ideological principle.

I'm going to quote from the Kings James version of the Holy Bible.

Genesis wrote:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die


One would be left to wonder, if God was predisposed to "knowledge"-has the will,and ability to distribute knowledge for those to acquire- than, one must assume that God is indeed guilty of withholding knowledge of which is "good" and "evil".
But, why than, is "God" and his "angels" exonerated from sin, yet, we [his people] are described as "imperfect"?
And why, if god was privy of "good", and "evil", didn't he die?

Well, the common rebut for this is the fact that we aren't capable enough of utilizing that knowledge for "good" (good:which is dictated by "god")

But that in itself is a contradiction when compared with the principle idea behind the cosmic battle between "God" and "Lucifer", which is to overwhelmingly prove to the "perfect angels" that God is the almighty truth.
Well than, if the angels, who are more privy to the information of gods truth, are as credulous, and easily mislead into temptation as our "we", than that leads one to assume that God's angels aren't "perfect" either.

So,what does this all mean? and why is it relevant?
It's simple, to answer to your question, I had to support the claim on why "knowledge is sinful", and the only logical explanation for God's disdain for knowledge is predominantly due to it's potential for unavailing God's true nature or identity.

It's one of of many reasons. The biggest, nonetheless.





alextemplet wrote:We call this a straw-man argument, Viloloco, and it's a form of illogic cloaked in "reason." I haven't seen anyone in this particular forum advance the Mt. Rushmore argument that you have set forth; perhaps you have, but it has not been mentioned here.


Now that I've answer your question, i can now refute the vitriol.
You equivocated my argument to a "straw-man" argument.
That to me or any fair-minded spectator , is considered irascible due to the fact that a staw-man argument has no real substance or validity in it.

Maybe you found it a bit unsettling,but mind you, it's only your personal opinion.
Also keep in mind that this forum was designed to attract diversity in information, dissidence of debate, and stimulation for accurate knowledge. I'm well aware that my views, and values are not shared by others, but I do make an effort to display them for others to fill in the voids where they lack them.


alextemplet wrote:This would be roughly analogous to an evangelical arguing against all of evolution based on the claims of social Darwinism. Not wise at all for two reasons. First, social Darwinism has never been advocated here; secondly, the truth or falsehood of the claims of a few does not affect the more common claims of the majority.


Whether or not it was "wrong" to support a certain view just because it might have hurt a creationlist's feelings on this forum, is ridiculous.
I was merely refuting the principle ideas behind creationism, and I evoked "natural selection" as a more plausible counter-argument, but not being indefinite to its legitimacy.
I would more than happily advocate a different view over mine if it had "substance of fact", creationism, lets face it, is recently new, repressive, and contradictory to core scientific principles.
That's not to say it's the banality of evil, it's certainly is not, but should not be considered valid by earnest,knowledge seeking individuals.





alextemplet wrote:As for the Bible, you are right to describe it as a mainly philosophical book, but I do not think it fair to describe it as out of date. Philosophical systems do not go out of date quite so much as they fade in and out of use. Unlike hard science, the relative value of a philosophical theory is dependent almost entirely on personal opinion,


Well, lets just define what it is to be "out-of-date" philosophically:
To repressive, or be oppressive in stark comparison to progressive.
I'd consider "slavery" an out-of-date philosophy and I'm sure you do too Alex.
Why? well, our "progressive" societies, by virtue of education, have chastises this humiliating form of human governing.
Sadly, some thrid-world countries still adhere to this form of dehumanization.
Doesn't mean we, by majority of this progressed society, are going to go back to that standard just because it was merely convenient.
You're correct that philosophical systems fade in and out, but the value of slavery, like religion, have been both devalued due to it's repression, and oppression. So, why is it that we can value one repressive philosophy, and discard another when in comparison, they can both share the same municipal principle values? (keep in mind, alot of slaves were happier under slavery with shelter, than they were when they were free)

Also, you're correct about hard science, but at least you can have an opinion in science, as opposed to religion.
Theologians are not really merited by any sect. They're basically quasi-scientist who are looking for a means to validate the scriptures.

alextemple wrote:and it is therefore unwise for anyone to make philosophical statements with any claims of established fact. I think there are certain elements of Biblical philosophy, particularly Christ's Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 and 6, that would greatly benefit the world today were it more widely implemented.

Again, your opinion is as substantial as established fact.
I pretty much reflect the views of many scientist who've studied that bible, and see it as mere poetical literature.
I'm sure no scientist would be as unscientific as to say there "isn't" a god tho. That includes me.
It's unwise to just assume anything without substance, much so to assume I'm spewing opinion based rhetoric just to ignite a debate.
I like most rationalist who've dabbled in scriptures, know it's falsehood, and it's negative counter-balance's over the positive.
Even with that said, people shouldn't be ignorant about the scripture, but should approach it in a cynical, third person perspective.
viloloco5
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:33 am

Re: Bible vs Darwin

Postby alextemplet » Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:50 am

The reason I think your position is inherently a straw-man argument is because you seem to be accusing people of saying or doing things they haven't. For example, I never said anything about hurting anyone's feelings; I only said that it's illogical to argue against someone based on something he never said. Your explanation of knowledge being sinful has only further convinced me of this, as I now understand that this is based entirely on your own personal interpretation of the Bible and not on the actual doctrines of any Christian denomination. I won't go into an in-depth description for two reasons. One, I am no theologian; I have read the Bible in its entirety and have studied the doctrines of many religious faiths, but I hold no degree in the subject. Second, any attempt to elaborate would almost certainly devolve into my own personal opinions on how the Bible should be interpreted, and my own opinions aren't really relevant to the point. One thing that is rather clear to me, though, after much study of scripture, is that the Bible is not self-interpreting. It was composed from literally dozens of sources, each written for a unique audience in a unique time and culture, and it cannot be clearly understood without much historical study into the languages and cultures of the time periods in question. For example, the first several chapters of Genesis are almost ver batim reproductions of Sumerian creation myths; this should come as no surprise considering that Abraham (the founder of the Judeao-Christian faith) was a Sumerian!

You are right that some religious doctrines are, as you describe, outdated and oppressive, but it is very unfair to generalize this to the practice of religious faith as a whole. For example, most Christian denominations (indeed, most religions) would disagree with your interpretation that knowledge is sinful. Some organized religions do, it is true, look down upon individual opinions and differences of thought, but the vast majority strive to keep an open mind and respect varying opinions. It is true that various religions have, at times, caused much suffering and harm on others, but so has practically every other invention that we humans have ever been able to create. I don't think you'll find anyone advocating the banning of automobiles due to accident-related fatalities. Many (probably most) religions do far more good than harm in the world, and do a lot of good for a lot of people. I try to keep an open mind towards most faiths, keeping in mind the good that these beliefs have done for their adherents. This is probably the single greatest reason why religious faith exists in the world; for one reason or another, it makes its believers happy. This is remarkably different from the scientific enterprise, where the goal is the pursuit of fact and not happiness.

This of course does not mean that we must choose one over the other; there is no reason why we cannot simultaneously pursue both universal fact and personal happiness. Most Christians, for example, are comfortable with accepting modern scientific theories such as evolution and yet they still find this perfectly compatible with their faith; the creationists are in fact a small but very vocal minority. I do not think it is fair to write off all religious faith as out-dated or harmful because of the opinions of a small minority of believers.

If I have misinterpreted your main point, then the error is mine alone. Also, I know I keep speaking in terms of Christianity; this is because the various Christian denominations represent the greatest field of my personal research and knowledge, and I felt it best to speak of a faith where I am at least somewhat knowledgeable instead of, for example, Buddhism or Hinduism, faiths that I know almost nothing about. I have tried to speak in terms of religious belief as a whole, using my knowledge of Christianity to provide specific examples.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

Postby AstusAleator » Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:34 pm

Alex is right, viloloco, most of the 'arguments' you are using do not have solid premises. For example, out-of-date does not equal oppressive/repressive. Oppression is one of many philosophical by-products that are being weeded out of most societies. It is not purely a product of religion, nor is it synonymous with antiquated philosophy.
To really test the current suitability of a philosophy, look at its interface with contemporary society. How popular is it? Is it spreading? Is it meshing well with its constituents' lives? Is it meshing well with the values of the society it's in?

Furthermore, you're confusing dogma/fundamentalism with the overall philosophy of christianity in your assertion that it is oppressive. It could be argued that true christian philosophy has been the driving force for freedom, and is the reason we have such a free, prosperous country today.

Just so you know, I'm not attacking you. I understand your frustration with creationist thought, and its political ramifications (ie what's taught in schools, funding for research, etc). I'm merely pointing out that you're taking the wrong approach to the problem. This is what Alex is doing as well. Consider the structure of your arguments. Support your conclusions with solid premises.

Oh and for better examples of creationist arguments that you could try to refute, go to http://www.icr.org
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Bible vs Darwin

Postby viloloco5 » Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:33 pm

alextemplet wrote:The reason I think your position is inherently a straw-man argument is because you seem to be accusing people of saying or doing things they haven't. For example, I never said anything about hurting anyone's feelings; I only said that it's illogical to argue against someone based on something he never said. Your explanation of knowledge being sinful has only further convinced me of this


You shouldn't cloud up your assertions.
What you're telling me is not to made an argument that's not specified by another,I understand that, but what you're implying is that my opinions are made without substance, and I'm saying that this forum was meant for discussion, and debate. If you think that every one person[s] opinion is gibberish, than you would have to condemn every persuasive book author out there.
A Straw-man (which is a noun not a adjective) point of view would be someone who's asserting opinion, based on "ignorance"(which is what you're implying onto me) about a particular subject and has merit in what he/she says.
My statements about "sinful knowledge" which is a valid claim, is very much opinionated, but based on controversial interpretations by many rationalist who are debunking faulty, biblical beliefs.
Maybe it's unscientific, than again, I didn't make this thread. I assume everyone here does have their personal ideas about religion falsehoods and shouldn't be criticized or hectored for it because than your positions transition into a polemical one.





alextemple wrote: One thing that is rather clear to me, though, after much study of scripture, is that the Bible is not self-interpreting.


What exactly do you mean by that?
If this relates to your assertion, than please listen.
Interpretations of the bible are arbitrary amongst all denominations of Christianity.
It's a pseudo philosophy by it's very vague roots, and that's why it's virtually irreconcilable, and a waste of time to debate amongst polemicist.
Unlike many other ancient philosophers (example: Plato, Socrates, Aristotle) , the bible doesn't have just one[1] major contributor, it has many, and that's where the obfuscation begins. We can't even validate who documented the bible indefinitely.
However, my rationale arguments are poignant, and virtually irrefutable to any earnest Christian, or at least refute it off to convince me or others without contradicting themselves.
That's why I made my argument, because I know the bible's loop holes, but I state my claims candidly.
Like I said, I'd be open to be reproved, but I seriously find it utterly unlikely that will happen.



alextemple wrote: For example, the first several chapters of Genesis are almost ver batim reproductions of Sumerian creation myths; this should come as no surprise considering that Abraham (the founder of the Judeao-Christian faith) was a Sumerian!


You know, you should have really stood to your position of "not being a Theologian".

First off, Abraham was NOT the founder of Christianity, or Judaism, he was a semite before Christ was even born!
He was however, the founder of monotheism.
Your statement is equivocal to fully accrediting Bill Gates for the "Internet.

Secondly,*Judeo-Christianity, is a concoction of American culture beginning in the early 19th century.
Every Theologian, Jew, and honest Christian scholar would agree.
Go look it up. It didn't really make much of a presence till 1945 .
Ignorant political pundit's, and Christian leaders catechizing this falsehood for political gain, we wouldn't be talking about it.
Don't confuse Judeo Christianity for "Christianity".

alextemple wrote:but it is very unfair to generalize this to the practice of religious faith as a whole.


I have every right to hold resentment for such religions.
A) When a religious leader vehemently denies all other books to debunk fallacy from truth, that's considered "demagoguery", and the idea of someone who's a cynical as a pastor to ween loads of credulous human beings to believe that there's only one book you need to live on this earth; excuse me, is as cruel as weening a child to the idea that there's nothing more important than money.

I however, don't want to imply that adults, who are privy to [it's] potential corruption, shouldn't be open to it.
I believe that someone who's mature enough,and want to live their life under the biblical philosophical principles, is fair, and totally their business.
My disdain comes from the ignorance of religious leaders who fail to comprehend that this books falsehoods are very potentially harmful to young minds who would be easily mislead by any rebel radical.
If you knew me, you'd realize that Christianity has even camouflaged into the urban hip-hop community.



alextemple wrote: For example, most Christian denominations (indeed, most religions) would disagree with your interpretation that knowledge is sinful.


You want to bet?

They'll tell you there's a "Difference" between "Knowledge and "Wisdom".
Maybe that's where you're misinformed.
Ask any Christian, "why is knowledge bad?"

alextemple wrote: I don't think you'll find anyone advocating the banning of automobiles due to accident-related fatalities.


This is a very subtle,short-sighted,straw-man analogy.
Would you let a 5 year old drive an automobile on a high-way?
No, why is that- you must ask yourself.
Because, Automobiles, just like religion, are both mutually dangerous if not perspicaciously taught by rational, responsible adults, and I think you'd agree.

You're not really comprehending what I'm saying, I'm NOT against the philosophical principles of the bible..I'm against everything else-meaning the falsehood belief that we as human beings, are participance of this cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil. I'm not sure you've deduced that yet.
Once the philosophical principles are met, there ((IS)) no reason why we have to follow any ridiculous practice like going to church because fundamentally, that's where all the harm to children begins. Church should be optional for adults only.
When you have a dictator super imposing their beliefs [whether it be through philosophy, persuasion, or flat-out demagoguery] onto young minds,than that's poignantly where the objections of many rationalist lie on. Those kids should be in school, being taught the essentials to a great education in order to keep continued progress in their society, and not be repressed backwards into an old standard, moderate way of living.
And this is not just "my" opinion by the way.

alextemple wrote:If I have misinterpreted your main point, then the error is mine alone

Thank you.



AstusAleator wrote:Alex is right, viloloco, most of the 'arguments' you are using do not have solid premises. For example, out-of-date does not equal oppressive/repressive


If you took a harder look you'd see "philosophy" at the end of that sentence.
And if alex is right, which he is in this quote, he wouldn't have agreed with me, and disagreed with you.
alextemple wrote:You are right that some religious doctrines are, as you describe, outdated and oppressive

Read everything I stated my latest post. It incorporates your arguments as well.

And as for the creationist site, their arguments are very rudimentary, so much so, that even Theologians have to refute them. All are very easily denounced with a little scientific work.
Creationist's biggest hitter is always going to be the "conception" of life.
That's where i based my latter assertions on- why I would accept the notion of intelligent design.
viloloco5
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:33 am

Re: Bible vs Darwin

Postby alextemplet » Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:31 pm

viloloco5 wrote:You shouldn't cloud up your assertions.
What you're telling me is not to made an argument that's not specified by another,I understand that, but what you're implying is that my opinions are made without substance, and I'm saying that this forum was meant for discussion, and debate. If you think that every one person[s] opinion is gibberish, than you would have to condemn every persuasive book author out there.


I'm glad you see my point, but I seriously think you need to stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that anyone else's opinion is gibberish. I merely stated why I disagree with yours. As you say, this forum is meant for discussion and debate.

viloloco5 wrote:A Straw-man (which is a noun not a adjective) point of view would be someone who's asserting opinion, based on "ignorance"(which is what you're implying onto me) about a particular subject and has merit in what he/she says.


The phrase "straw-man" can be either a noun or an adjective, and it is a form of logical fallacy involving arguing against something that doesn't exist.

viloloco5 wrote:My statements about "sinful knowledge" which is a valid claim, is very much opinionated, but based on controversial interpretations by many rationalist who are debunking faulty, biblical beliefs.


Once again I'm glad you see my point, although I would like to ask how you are defining "rationalist."

viloloco5 wrote:Interpretations of the bible are arbitrary amongst all denominations of Christianity.


This is very true among some denominations; others are more careful with their historical research and try to interpret the Bible (as much as possible) within the context which it was originally written.

viloloco5 wrote:However, my rationale arguments are poignant, and virtually irrefutable to any earnest Christian, or at least refute it off to convince me or others without contradicting themselves.
That's why I made my argument, because I know the bible's loop holes, but I state my claims candidly.


I think an educated Christian who's down his historical home work would have a solid case against your opinion, but as I am agnostic I'll leave that up to them.

viloloco5 wrote:First off, Abraham was NOT the founder of Christianity, or Judaism, he was a semite before Christ was even born!
He was however, the founder of monotheism.
Your statement is equivocal to fully accrediting Bill Gates for the "Internet.


Of course Abraham was not the founder of Christianity; he was however the founder of Judaism. Christianity and Islam are both later off-shoots founded by other men, but all three trace the roots of their faith back to Abraham. This is why Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are often grouped together as the "Abrahamic faiths."

viloloco5 wrote:Don't confuse Judeo Christianity for "Christianity".


I am not. Christianity is Christianity, and Judaism is Judaism. The two faiths however have a lot in common, and the term "Judeo-Christianity" is a valid phrase that can be used when discussing both of them together, just as the term "Abrahamic faiths" is often used to describe Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

viloloco5 wrote:I have every right to hold resentment for such religions.


Right you have but I still disagree, based on the fact that the characteristics for which you are condemning all of Christianity do not apply to the whole of it.

viloloco5 wrote:You want to bet?

They'll tell you there's a "Difference" between "Knowledge and "Wisdom".
Maybe that's where you're misinformed.
Ask any Christian, "why is knowledge bad?"


Yes I'll take you up on that bet. Most people (Christians included) would define knowledge as knowing information, and wisdom as knowing how to use that information. Almost no one would describe knowledge as sinful.

viloloco5 wrote:This is a very subtle,short-sighted,straw-man analogy.
Would you let a 5 year old drive an automobile on a high-way?
No, why is that- you must ask yourself.
Because, Automobiles, just like religion, are both mutually dangerous if not perspicaciously taught by rational, responsible adults, and I think you'd agree.


My statement was not a straw-man; it was a valid analogy. You have condemned all of Christianity based on the actions of a minority of Christians; this is analogous to banning automobiles due to accident-related fatalities. My point was merely to show that every human invention has in some way been abused in one way or another. I don't think you would advocate banning evolution from our schools because of the cruelties of social darwinism, yet you are quick to condemn Christianity based on the misinterpretations of a few.

viloloco5 wrote:You're not really comprehending what I'm saying, I'm NOT against the philosophical principles of the bible..I'm against everything else-meaning the falsehood belief that we as human beings, are participance of this cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil.


So you're against the belief that we are participants in a struggle between good and evil? In other words, you're against an opinion that disagrees with yours? I don't really believe in any sort of "cosmic struggle" either, but I don't see the harm in trying to motivate people to do good. The world needs a lot more of it.

viloloco5 wrote:Once the philosophical principles are met, there ((IS)) no reason why we have to follow any ridiculous practice like going to church because fundamentally, that's where all the harm to children begins. Church should be optional for adults only.


You are right that there may be no reason to attend church for you, but others might find reasons, just as many find reasons to go to football games or movie theaters. Church already is optional, but I don't think you'll have much luck trying to place bouncers at every church door to check IDs. I think you're grossly exaggerating by claiming that this is destroying our children. Yes children should be in school, but fortunately church services are held on the week ends. I don't think there's a serious problem of children not being in school because they're always in church.

In conlcusion, if you had limited your arguments against "fundamentalist" or "extremist" (or whichever term you prefer) Christianity instead of attacking Christianity as a whole, I would have never disagreed with you. Every accusation you have made is true of some Christian sects, but nowhere near all of them.
Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

~Alex
#2 Total Post Count
User avatar
alextemplet
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 5599
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:50 pm
Location: South Louisiana (aka Cajun Country)

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests