[SappyAppy]

I think you are making sweeping generalizations... not like I'm against that. However, if you think that a couple of blowhards are going to dictate the progress of our individual nations my advice would change my way of thinking. Those who tend to know the least about something seem to be the same people who talk the most about it.

70% of Americans believe most likely because the majority of Americans are 50+ and need to believe in God because they are all about to die! Or, they have matured enough to realize The Truth. I think if you took a similar poll on the college campuses you will find a more liberal mind set, and thus less religious people. If, for some reason, you think progress only comes from atheists (which is a wrong opinion) than I wouldn't worry about it, since a lot of the US youth are ignorant like that.

Anyway, I am certain nations will get left behind. The US will be playing catch up on the stem cell issue, for example. However, these are minor hiccups that will not slow progress only refocus who reaps the benefits, and I have no problem with that. Perhaps it will wake up some people.

[Rurcextedutty]

Slowwhand, once again, posting without really saying anything.

[botagozzz]

Originally posted by FrostyBoy
Slowwhand, once again, posting without really saying anything. I said exactly what I meant, and your response verifies my opinion. You've lost the ability to think, Mobius. I mean, Frosty. Excuse me.

[spiveker]

Slowwhand, I don't care that you said what you meant, my point was that you consistently nitpick anything but the topic at hand, maybe you fail to seperate paragraphs or whatever, don't you get that whether or not I got my information from youtube or The Great Oracle doesn't stop you from answering the question. That is my gripe with you; you time and again do this, you just post stupid one liners that don't really contribute to anything.

The question is good, the rest of my paragraphs is just jibberish, it's not important to refute, it's not important to worry yourself over.

[CoenceLomneedtrue]

that does not embrace science by facts

It's most of the time not the fact that causes the difference of opinion but the conclusion people draw from the facts.

I do accept science, but I do not accept everything that's scientific. Nobody does, btw. Scientists are also human and make mistakes. There have been many scientific theories that later turned to be wrong nevertheless.

That's not a problem, that's how we make progress.
We come with a theory, then we come with a better theory.

but by foolish ideas such as ID

ID isn't foolish. It's most probably not an alternative for evolution. But as a tool to show some problems in evolution, it's very effective.

Perhaps there are answers to the questions raised by ID that do not need a designer indeed. That doesn't mean that those questions shouldn't be raised.

Not to forget to mention that ID is supported by very well educated scientists. Maybe they're wrong. That doesn't mean they're foolish.

Darwin was wrong about many mechanics he imagined behind evolution. That's why we now have the 'neo darwinistic theory of evolution'.
Does that make Darwin a fool?

I think it's only foolish to call others who disagree with you a fool.

So my question is, what holds for a nations future and position of power that does not embrace science by facts, but by foolish ideas such as ID? Would it collapse? Would it fall behind? Are we seeing something similar like that happening now?

Our modern science and culture is a result of the reformation. It's the reformed vision on christianity that settled the grounds for freethinking and modern science.

It's not for nothing that the christian nations are most developped at this moment.
Not to mention that there are many many christian scientists who are very well respected in their fields.

And a second question, why does it seem to be difficult for a thiest to cross-examine their own belief and the understanding of natural selection?

Dude, I am cross-examining my believes and thoughts about 50 times a day. I have many questions regarding my faith. I have many problems and things I can't find an answer on.
I am being forced to rethink my position many times a day.

And eventhough I have many technical questions on the history of the Bible and rational troubles with christian concepts, I still am absolutely sure that evolution from 1-cell-organism to human is bollocks.

Even if I become an atheist tomorrow, then I will still reject evolution as presented these days by the neo-darwinistic theory of evolution.

Don't act like you're the only one who's thinking.
My thoughts are killing me. I'm thinking about these issues hours per day. Sometimes they make that I can't sleep.

And everytime I still conclude that there must be a God and that evolution is bollocks.
I can be wrong, maybe I am, but please stop acting like "those christians never think".

Not to mention of course that what you said about christians can be said about you as well.
Maybe you reject ID or God without rethinking it.... Maybe you do not accept arguments or evidence. Maybe maybe maybe......

But we have no use for maybes. Why can't we accept that both parties in this debate can be thinking individuals who have different opinions?
Why always that "I am smarter then thou" attitude?

You are not smarter then me. period. You show that by posting bollocks like: "Christians never rethink their position" or "If christians would only understand natural selection...."
How simplistic....

It seems thiests/believers immediately reject any answers given by any scientists/debators, whilst those scientists/debators have a previously understood knowledge of theology.

Stop kidding me.
When I read your holy Dawkings I laughed my head off b/c of the stupid things he says about religion.
I really had troubles breathing when he claimed that "the universe can be self-existing if God can be self existing". That's really really really such a form of poor reasoning that it's embarashing that that many people hold him high.

You just saw a lot of atheistic propaganda of very poor quality. You are brainwashed.
Like those many people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job after viewing those conspiracy theory-videos.

The thiests don't seem to know what they're talking about, the discussions/debates quickly turn into what seems like adults v's children


Sure, you're smart and we are all dumb and stupid.
We know nothing, you know everything.
How could I doubt your message. I should accept it as the final word on everything.

We theists suck big time, we are all mentally incapable to think. We follow our preachers blindly.

People like you are awesome! You are a free-thinker. You base your opinion on people like Dawkins, but you don't follow Dawkins blindly, nooooo, you create your opinion after having read many books, both from theists and atheists.

I am sorry that I am not like you.
I'm sorry that I am a sheep.
Please teach me how to become like you.

Seriously, I have read books from both theists and atheists. Many theistsic books hold a lot of bollocks. Like many atheist books hold a lot of bollocks. (did I mention Dawkings 'the universe can be self-existent if God can be self-existent' remark already?)

But also do both sides of the debate hold good arguments. I've learned many things from people who hold a different opinion then I do.
Everytime I read or hear something that makes my brains ring I try to look up a possible answer from someone who disagrees with it.
Every argument has a counter-argument.

If you applaude Dawking's videos but never tried to read a counter-dawkings book then you are no better then an european catholic citizen from the middle ages who believed everything the pope said.

Now go to the library and take some books from theists and read them. If you really want to enlight yourself, then that's what you should do. Read books from people you disagree with. Try to understand why they reason like they reason.

don't be like: "Those billions of christians are stupid, I am smart. They are like children who debate with an adult. I am an adult"
That's silly and 100% immature.

I'm sorry, but this kind of behavior really really really annoys me more and more since more and more people adopt that "Smarter then thou" attitude.

Then I turn on the T.V. (or actually in my case, read the news online) and I can quickly see why.

You should read books.
Knowledge is in books, not in online news or youtube videos.

Like health is in vegetables and not in the candy store.
Youtube is the candy store, the library is the grocery.

Do you have books? Scientific books? Did you read them?

Basing your arrogant attitude upon watching Dawkins on youtube
It's almost like: "In 'friends' phoebe beated Ross in a debate about evolution, so now I become a christian".

[Greapyjeory]

Plenty of progress has been the result of religious people. Gregor Mendel was a priest for instance.

Until Dawkins or Hitchens can provide scientific evidence that religion is bad for human development, they're just voicing opinions. Their hypothesis needs to be rigorously tested.

I second Agathon on Dawkins being a twit. His personality really makes it hard for me to listen to what he has to say.

[Super-Luser]

Originally posted by Agathon
The problem with Dawkins is that he's an English twit. Many people turn to religion out of a desire for meaning or a fear of death. Dawkins ignores all that and treats the question of religious belief as if it were the same as selecting from Starbucks' range of caffeinated beverages.

This is a long standing problem among a strain of English intellectuals (Nietzsche complains about it in his books). They all decry religious belief, but their stiff upper lip and emotional hollowness blinds them to what they are giving up. That's why they come off as ***** most of the time.

Having said that, there are plenty of shallow religious people too. I believe religious belief is genetic in same cases. I know people who get no benefit (like the ones you mentioned, overcoming fear of death, a more meaninguul life etc) from their religious belief.
Instead all they get are "bad things" like living in constant fear of hell, or for example, if they are homosexuals sadness due to not being allowed to be in a relationship, or divorced men and women, who fall in love again, but are not allowed to get into a new relationship.
They can`t help it. They are people who wish God did not exist but can't help believing in God.

[ElectraDupu]

Atheists often have a hard time, in my experience, understanding how intelligent people can also be religious.

Atheists, in my experience, also believe that only for being atheists, they are smarter than most of the world's population.
Being intelligent is not that easy.

QFT.

[Fruriourl]

Atheists tend to be better educated than the norm, which probably gives a self-inflated ego.

My personal experience is that people who have been raised in strongly religious households tend to be religious. Shocking discovery, I know. But another gauge is how 'bad' they've been in their past. They feel a need to purge their souls. The most devout are usually the ones with the most skeletons in their closet.


Hitchens is a putz.

[lidersontop]

That always annoyed me.

I hate it when people who had a crazy life, drugs, alcohol, orgies etc become religious, talk about how lost they were, and tell people that they should live decently.

I feel like they don't want me to have all the fun they had.

[nvmrfgopyy]

... It could also be, two different expressions of a same roots ( or a same desire, aspiration). The roots of the addiction to abuse drugs, alcoholism, sex, love, etc. is maybe linked to the experience of the numinous, of the mystics, of the transcendence, whatever you call it.
(just giving my thoughts)

[thushioli]

Originally posted by Felch
Why can't the reformed ones take up Buddhism or something? A bit less preachy that way. Lately I see a lot of people trying buddhism, a little too much in my opinion. I feel like they didn't even consider christianity as a possibility for one second. Maybe it is not seen as exotic or cool.


The point I tried to made in my previous post, is that it is easier to not do something if you have tried it before, you no longer wonder about how it feels. You don't have the curiosity.

[career-builder]

Originally posted by Theben
My personal experience is that people who have been raised in strongly religious households tend to be religious. Shocking discovery, I know. Actually, children of Christians are much more likely to switch from Christianity to something else than children of atheists to change at all.

JM

[Seilehogshell]

I think it helps for people to tell of their conversion. Also, I think everyone needs to be "born again", or to realize their relationship with Jesus at an age later than adolescence. Everyone likes to assume Christianity brainwashes people, but the "born again" aspect requires an adult decision, and seeing why others made the decision and what they have become is the best testimony one can give. At least better than "I'm a Christian because I have always been and you should be too."

[anenselog]

Idunno. Whenever somebody asks me if I have a personal relationship with Jesus, I feel weirded out and vaguely offended. It sounds proprietary. I want to say, "we don't date, if that's what you mean."

[retTreftowhexm]

(did I mention Dawkings 'the universe can be self-existent if God can be self-existent' remark already?) I think it was Hume that came up with that argument first.

[kathy]

Darwin was very religious. He did not say or imply that people that were less than "perfect" were defective. He did not believe, and there is no evidence to support that most human imperfections are genetic.

There is nothing in the New Testament that is in any way hostile to the scientific method. Christians can be both religious and scientific.

ID is not a scientific theory. It is an attack on a theory. Evolutionary theory was developed over more than 100 years based on the available evidence. In order to compete with that theory, the IDers need to provide countervailing, testable theory accounting for that evidence. Logic is important to theory development, but does not qualify as evidence for a new theory. For the most part IDers don't have any new evidence or any new theory that can be tested.

In round 1, creationists were hoisted on the petard of a supposedly 6,000 year old world with millions of years worth of fossil records. In round 2, it appears that IDers will be hoisted on the petard of no real, testable hypothesis. Scientific method requires testable elements with repeatable results. Evolutionary theory presents evidence of the natural selection process occuring over and over again. An alternate explanation for this needs to be debated if evidence supports it.

[jPNy2BP5]

You know that there are lots and lots of Christians (the majority?) who believe in evolution.

Not very many denominations are going to shout at you about the earth being 6000 years old.

JM

[T1ivuQGS]

how can you be a biologist who I imagine, would need to believe in natural selection, which is our updated view of the biological world around us AND be a Christian without conflicting your views? Why are biologists required to adhere to the antiquated relic of darwinian evolution? Physics has left Aristotle behind, Chemistry has moved beyond Agrippa. Why is Evolution saddled by Darwin?

For example, Sunday morning, scientist wakes up, goes to church. Rev. Shoutalot talks about age of the Earth being around 6000 years. Ah, so all Christians are YEC? Hardly so. I am not, and I'm not even sure there is a YEC here on Apolyton.

My question for the educated man, what was the first discovery to shatter the YEC perspective?

[Kimaamighed]

Evolution need not be witnessed in a laboratory setting. Yes it does, I'm afraid. It must be replicable in some way shape or form, and it must make predictions that can falsify the theory.

Darwinian evolution says that it is survival of the fittest, but it describes the fittest as those who are most adapted to their environment. Thus the definition is circular. By definition, whichever creature survives was fitter then the other.

If it adequately explains the origin of observed phenomena better than ID (which it does), then it surely takes precedence. It's a good theory, but there is no evidence to back it up.

and the whole distinction between micro- and macro- evolution is a myth; the change is a continuous process, not a discrete one. You miss the point. Darwin assumes that the process of differentiation by which a species changes and adapts to fill different ecological niches, could also explain the origin of species.

He proved wholeheartedly the first principle, which is microevolution, through the process of observation, he could make predictions on how a species would differentiate in response to different environments. He proved without a shadow of a doubt that a species is shaped by their environment, and will change in order to adapt in a predictable way.

Mendel showed why it worked, and the underlying principles behind heredity.

However, his premise that differentiation could show how one species could change into another is entirely speculative. It has yet to be adequately proven.

You might say that macro is the change from one species to another but these distinctions are conceived by man. Oh really? So cladists labour in vain to establish a scientific method of taxonomy. You believe we should throw out that entire structure because it is 'man made', and yet you adhere to Darwin?

Chemistry progressed when they realised that the periodic table had real significance, that the grouping of elements was not arbitrary. Yet here you are saying that Taxonomy is entirely man made and has no real bearing on the world?

Wow!

And I'm supposed to be the uneducated fanatic?

This is your 'micro-evolution'. But at what point would this continuous adaption to land (eventually progressing to an amphibian) be a macro-evolutionary change? Why are you asking me that question, you should know that answer being an evolutionist after all.

The second question I raise, is the other one you list. You say that evolution is a continuous process. It is not discrete. If in fact it is true that the environment does shape the nature of the species, then it will be a discrete process. Natural catastrophes will play the largest part in evolution.