Creationism vs. Evolution

[cheese91 9]

Now that this thread has sort of started up again, I'd like to post a reminder to discuss the issues at hand, not one another.

I'm not saying anyone has violated this rule, I'm just reminding everyone of that rule so that this discussion can remain as civilized and friendly as possible.

Thanks everyone!

-91

[specializedguy 193]

Some of the responses to my post easily fortify points I have already made. There are creationists who would well contend for the position far better than I can. And as I have mentioned before, I encourage you to investigate some of them. I certainly hope you folks don't think I am "copping out"-as I mentioned, time is important to me. The topic of this debate could go on for months or years even if given the opportunity, which draws me back to my recommendation: research. Besides, the realm of apologetics has revealed the obvious truth that sometimes people aren't willing to listen to reason, or logic, and you're never going to know if the person you're debating to or talking with is one of those people. You can draw conclusions sure, but they are them and you are you. Anyway...I was raised in a home where I didn't serve God. I went to a public school and remember even in my younger years being taught evolution. If I was able to come to the conclusion I am at, I don't think it to be a difficult thing for others to arrive at it as well. This will be my final post on this topic as these responses were even longer than I would have liked. I'll conclude with two thoughts: if creationism is real, and God does exist, we might want to consider what He has to say. The comments made towards me in this brief discussion have been rather unoffensive / non-attacking. I appreciate that. Thank you.

[AngelOne 0]

I believe in God.

Faith is described as the belief in the unprovable.

I believe in evolution.

The scientific evidence is overwhelming.

What was here before the Big Bang?

Was our universe created from nothing?

2000 years ago western civilization thought there were only four elements.

Now there are 109.

We have split the atom and discovered quarks.

What is inside a quark?

What is inside that?

What is inside that?

The Hubble and other space telescopes have seen the edge of the universe.

What is beyond that?

What is beyond that?

Humans, if they survive, will continue to disect and enlarge our universe.

We will continue to seek the answer to the ultimate question.

Why am I here?

I think we would be arrogant to perceive to know the breadth and knowledge of our creator.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Well, I see that this revival of the thread will continue. Good, good. I always like a debate, especially with people who deny actual reality, fact, and logic to suit a preexisting mindset (in other words, the faithful).

Originally posted by: JGellock

Some of the responses to my post easily fortify points I have already made. There are creationists who would well contend for the position far better than I can. And as I have mentioned before, I encourage you to investigate some of them.quote>

Yes, I have investigated them, for many years. I have come to the conclusion using facts and reason (the only two tools for investigating reality that actually give correct conclusions), that all of Creation is a load of nonsense.

I certainly hope you folks don't think I am "copping out"-as I mentioned, time is important to me. quote>

Oh, I don't you're copping out. I think you're bugging out (in the military sense of the word), though probably not because your position has been compromised. Withdrawing from current events threads for a while is often a good thing to do. This ensures that  you are not too bogged down by illogical people and positions (c.f. Balloon boy thread).

That said, I hope you will return at some point in the future to the debate. The more participants we have, the better.

The topic of this debate could go on for months or years even if given the opportunity, which draws me back to my recommendation: research. quote>

Actually the topic of this debate has already gone on for months or years. In fact, including today, it has lasted 2 years, 7 months, and 2 days -- 947 days in total, with a couple-month lull earlier in the year.

Besides, the realm of apologetics has revealed the obvious truth that sometimes people aren't willing to listen to reason, or logic, and you're never going to know if the person you're debating to or talking with is one of those people. quote>

I agree with your position on this point. The apologists who will not acknowledge clear and obvious facts and not acknowledge the utility of logic, would be considered insane if they weren't trying to ramrod a preexisting religion down everyone's throats.

You can draw conclusions sure, but they are them and you are you. Anyway...I was raised in a home where I didn't serve God. I went to a public school and remember even in my younger years being taught evolution. If I was able to come to the conclusion I am at, I don't think it to be a difficult thing for others to arrive at it as well. quote>

In the end, it does not matter what you are taught. The only thing that matters is fact. I do not know what sort of twisted logic led you to conclude that Creation was right, despite the fact that it is not a real explanation for anything: unsubstantiated, does not explain any facts, and does not make any predictions about future observations, so I cannot comment on whether others will reach the same conclusion.

This will be my final post on this topic as these responses were even longer than I would have liked. I'll conclude with two thoughts: if creationism is real, and God does exist, we might want to consider what He has to say. quote>

Ah, yes, but in the absence of any evidence that the Christian god exists, we can safely conclude based on observations made up to this point in time, that such a god does not exist. Using any method which has a probability of discovering the truth, demands that we cannot assume that something exists without proof. If it cannot be assumed to exist, then we must assume then that it does not exist. Basically, what this means is that the burden of proof is on the asserter to prove that something is there, not on the skeptic to prove that it is not there.

To use an analogy, let's say I take you into my living room. I say that there is a bookcase on the wall, when no one can see any bookcase, and there are no indications using any methods of detection (touching, infrared, x-ray, gravitational lensing, etc.) that it is there. If we are to use any sort of method which can discover the truth, the burden of proof must rest on me to prove that it is there. You do not have to prove that it is not there.

If I cannot find any proof that it is there at all, we can make one of two conclusions -- that the bookcase is indeed not there, or that it is there despite all the evidence to the contrary, and we must believe that it is there on faith. Which conclusion would match reality the best? The conclusion that it is not there.

If we are to take on faith every single claim that something exists despite evidence, we would not be able to ascertain what is real and what is not. Hence we have the scientific method, which is the best methodology we have developed to date which can ascertain reality.

After all of this, I come back to my original statement: God does not exist. It is up to the proponents of God to prove that he does exist, using methodology which has the tested capability to discover what is real and what is not real. Any methodology that has been put forth that indicates the existence of God has no capability to ascertain the truth in any situation, such as the bookcase analogy.

As of today, there is not any indication using these methods which proves that God exists, therefore we must assume that God is nonexistent.

If God is nonexistent, then Creationism is a load of nonsense, and furthermore, the Bible is not the word of God, but the word of the Israelites.

Perhaps such a long statement belongs in the Existence of God thread, but since Creation requires a god, I may as well demonstrate the absurdity of the entire concept right here.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Since neither of these ideas are known to be factual, why not cling to both?  Let those who are enamored of scripture of doubtful source cling to their position, while those on the scientific side continue to seek fact.  Faith or science:  it is all a matter of whose evidence you choose.

Let creationism be a footnote in the archeology texts and let evolution be a footnote in biblical studies.

I quote Dr. Einstein: "God doesn't play at dice, but He is very subtile".

Let us forget such nonsense as the fossils are the work of the devil.  Everything is from the hand of creation.

And let me remind everyone that unless we become equal to the creator, we can never understand it.

[chicah 20]

I have to admit, I haven't read through 48 pages of discussion, and I don't think I ever have the intent to do so.

I would rather believe in science than religion, even though we know so very little. But the evolution theory makes a lot more sense to me than the God theory. I won't bother repeating all the arguments which sure have been in this thread, I'll just ask one question, which has been bothering me ever since I was a kid and read the Bible because I thought the stories were entertaining:

Back when Adam and Eve lived, there lived more people aswell. I remember several people mentioned, including one woman who married one of their sons. That woman surely couldn't have been their daugther, I SERIOUSLY doubt they would've approved of that. So where did that woman come from, another people created by some God? Or did God start creating people at an amazing pace because he knew they wouldn't be able to do it fast enough? I would really like it if someone who knows the Bible better than I do, could answer this.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Boggy1 45]

I finally received COSMOS by the, alas late, Carl Sagan, the DVD collection, for Christmas.

I implore you all to watch this monumental series which looks at all aspects of academia; science, history, mathematics, astronomy, and also religion, and philosophy.

Carl Sagan has a wonder of explaining the entire process of the Universe, from red blood cells and DNA, to the formation of galaxies and stars.

This, relevant, particular clip is very good.

Please, if you have not watched this series; do so. It will open your eyes.

[BattleshipAgincourt 1]

Originally posted by: JGellock

Some of the responses to my post easily fortify points I have already made. There are creationists who would well contend for the position far better than I can. And as I have mentioned before, I encourage you to investigate some of them.quote>

Okay, I just want to make something clear:  I dismiss any source that supports creationism.  Creationism, whether it be taking the bible literally or shifting to intelligent design, revolves around divine intervention from an all-powerful God.  No such 'divine intervention' has ever been proven.  

Originally posted by: JGellockThe topic of this debate could go on for months or years even if given the opportunity, which draws me back to my recommendation: research. Besides, the realm of apologetics has revealed the obvious truth that sometimes people aren't willing to listen to reason, or logic, and you're never going to know if the person you're debating to or talking with is one of those people.quote>

Sorry if I'm being insulting, but I can't see how any 'neutral' party could go through some of your sources and believe any of it.  There is truth behind most of it, but most of the logic is self-sustaining.  Obviously life is so complex that you can't really hope to throw all the hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, phosphates, proteins, amino acids, and nucleotides into one product to create life.  This doesn't mean life could only have been the product of divine intervention.  Evolution proves that simple life can evolve into more complex organisms.  Biodiversity in ecosystems become more complex with time.  More complex ecosystems are more resilient than simpler ones.  Evolution proves that once you have simple life, it may only be a matter of time before they evolve to a level such as humans.

When intelligent design comes into play, you essentially are just taking evolution and then just adding God at the beginning of it all.  I dismiss this theory because you can just remove God altogether and it doesn't alter the theory or its results.  In science, you don't add a variable into a theory unless it has some impact on the results.  So making the claim that God created humans via intelligent design doesn't really change the theory of evolution any more than if God wasn't involved at all.  If God created the original organism which would eventually lead to the evolution of humans, then God didn't create humans.  That's what defeats all intelligent design theories I've ever heard.  Even if God should somehow have known life would evolve to humans a billion years later, it wouldn't be him who was responsible for it all.  Once he set life in motion, his divine intervention ends there and life is allowed to go on its way.

Originally posted by: JGellockThis will be my final post on this topic as these responses were even longer than I would have liked. I'll conclude with two thoughts: if creationism is real, and God does exist, we might want to consider what He has to say.quote>

I know that I'm just encouraging more debate off a person who won't respond, but this is something that I really wanted to point out for my own purposes.  You make the case that if God were real, we shouldn't just dismiss any possibility that he exists.  My problem with this point is that if God DID want to be known, then surely he would.  Even for an all-powerful being, he SHOULD be able to make himself comprehendible to humans.  If he doesn't/can't, then he's not the Christian God we've come to know.

[fukuda 351]

'Lifeless' prion proteins are 'capable of evolution'

Abnormal prion proteins cause at least 20 fatal diseases

Scientists have shown for the first time that "lifeless" prion proteins, devoid of all genetic material, can evolve just like higher forms of life.

The Scripps Research Institute in the US says the prions can change to suit their environment and go on to develop drug resistance.

Prions are associated with 20 different brain diseases in humans and animals.

The scientists say their work suggests new approaches might be necessary to develop therapies for these diseases.

In the study, published in the journal Science, the scientists transferred prion populations from brain cells to other cells in culture and observed the prions that adapted to the new cellular environment out-competed their brain-adapted counterparts.

When returned to the brain cells, the brain-adapted prions again took over the population.

Charles Weissmann, head of Scripps Florida's department of infectology who led the study, said: "On the face of it, you have exactly the same process of mutation and adaptive change in prions as you see in viruses.

This is a timely reminder that prion concerns are not going away and that controls to stop abnormal prions being transmitted to humans through the food system or through blood transfusions must be vigorously maintained Professor John Collinge, Medical Research Council Prion Unit

"This means that this pattern of Darwinian evolution appears to be universally active.

"In viruses, mutation is linked to changes in nucleic acid sequence that leads to resistance.

"Now, this adaptability has moved one level down- to prions and protein folding - and it's clear that you do not need nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) for the process of evolution."

Mammalian cells normally produce cellular prion protein or PrPC.

During infections, such as the human form of mad cow disease known as vCJD, abnormal or misfolded proteins convert the normal host prion protein into its toxic form by changing its conformation or shape.

"It was generally thought that once cellular prion protein was converted into the abnormal form, there was no further change", Mr Weissmann said.

"But there have been hints that something was happening.

"When you transmit prions from sheep to mice, they become more virulent over time.

PRION DISEASES Human prion diseases such as Creutzfeldt Jakob disease (CJD) can arise sporadically, be acquired by infection or be inherited because of a mutant gene coding for the prion protein They are relatively rare but have occurred in epidemic form in Papua New Guinea as a result of brain cannibalism Animal prion diseases include scrapie in sheep and goats, chronic wasting disease in deer and elk and transmissible mink encephalopathy Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) first appeared in UK in mid-1980s It is estimated that more than two million UK cattle were infected Variant CJD (vCJD) caused by the same prion strain as BSE was first recognised in the mid-1990s

"Now we know that the abnormal prions replicate, and create variants, perhaps at a low level initially.

"But once they are transferred to a new host, natural selection will eventually choose the more virulent and aggressive variants."

Professor John Collinge, of the Medical Research Council's (MRC) Prion Unit, described the research as exciting confirmation of a hypothesis that he had proposed two years ago, that there could be a "cloud" or whole array of prion proteins in the body.

He called it the cloud hypothesis.

He said: "The prion protein is not a clone, it is a quasi-species that can create different protein strains even in the same animal.

"The abnormal prion proteins multiply by converting normal prion proteins.

"The implication of Charles Weissmann's work is that it would be better to cut off that supply of normal prion proteins rather than risk the abnormal prion adapting to a drug and evolving into a new more virulent form.

"You would do this by trying to block the sites on the normal prion protein that the abnormal form locks on to to do its conversion.

"We know there is an antibody that can do this in mice and the Medical Research Council's Prion Unit have managed to engineer a human antibody to do this.

Chemical libraries

"It is currently undergoing safety tests and we hope to move to clinical trials by the end of 2011"

Professor Collinge said the MRC was also trying to find more conventional chemical compounds to do this and has been collaborating with the chemical company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

He said: "They have given us access to their chemical libraries, which contain millions of compounds, and we have already identified some that may work well.

"This is a timely reminder that prion concerns are not going away and that controls to stop abnormal prions being transmitted to humans through the food system or through blood transfusions must be vigorously maintained."

============================================================

Life is amazing.. I wasn't expecting this at all 

[Easy Bakes 253]

^^^ Wow amazing what they can learn now^^^

Sounds like they are on thier way to  stoping   a lot of brian  dieases.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I have been doing some digging into cosmology.  Guess what?  Both view points are correct except the Biblical time scale has to be allegorical.

Recent work has shown that space-time did not exist until the instant of the big bang, some time in the distant past.  Furthermore, the universe continues to expand.  There is a theory that says we can't see the whole universe not because we can't see that far, but because of all the "dark energy" in the universe that obscures the view and keeps things expanding.

Since there was no space-time as we know it before the big bang, then the big bang is the moment of creation.  Genealogies and begats and Bishop Usher notwithstanding, the universe as we know it was created.  Science is silent on the idea of a cause.  I guess we can call it the Creator, First Cause, or even God if you like.  However, we should refrain from anthropomorphizing God.  Something that could do this is clearly beyond man's understanding, and always will be.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

There is a theory that says we can't see the whole universe not because we can't see that far, but because of all the "dark energy" in the universe that obscures the view and keeps things expanding.quote>

The general explanation is that beyond a certain point, the expansion of the universe has things moving away from us faster than the speed of light. So, we can't see them because light from them never reaches us. I don't know about dark matter "obsucring the view", but keeping things expanding, perhaps.

the universe as we know it was created.quote>

Or spontaneously came into being, at least. "Was created" implies the presence of an external creator or creating force - not necessarily the case.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Since there was no space-time as we know it before the big bang, then the big bang is the moment of creation.  Genealogies and begats and Bishop Usher notwithstanding, the universe as we know it was created.  Science is silent on the idea of a cause.  I guess we can call it the Creator, First Cause, or even God if you like.  However, we should refrain from anthropomorphizing God.  Something that could do this is clearly beyond man's understanding, and always will be.

quote>

Or we can call the cause "unknown at the present time". There is research being done into what caused the Big Bang, but nothing conclusive has turned up yet. Furthermore, if we observe an event, we should not assume it was caused by anything unless that causer can be identified. In this case, no causer has been identified, therefore we should not assume it was caused by anything. To assume a causer without proof there is one would consitute adopting methodologies (i.e. faith in a book) which are extremely poor at discovering what is real and what is not.

And isn't this supposed to be a thread about Evolution, not about the Big Bang?

EDIT: Looking back, I see that I started the God.Big Bang/Abiogenesis track in this debate .

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

EDIT: Looking back, I see that I started the God.Big Bang/Abiogenesis track in this debate .

quote>

Tua culpa?

[clhigh7 583]

personally ,being roman catholic, i believe in creationism only but i dont try an shove my religion an beliefs down other peoples throats. i actually haven't learned about evolution at all,everytime its been brought up in school my parents had me excused from class but i sorta get an idea an it just doesnt really make sense or add up in my head

[Lacey14 3]

I personally Don't believe in god for the reasons that it just seems silly and there is no hard evidence. To me it is like Santa Claus. I don't want to insult those who believe in god, I know that I am a minority in this conversation but these are my thoughts.

[astronelson 339]

Originally posted by: clhigh7

personally ,being roman catholic, i believe in creationism only but i dont try an shove my religion an beliefs down other peoples throats. i actually haven't learned about evolution at all,everytime its been brought up in school my parents had me excused from class but i sorta get an idea an it just doesnt really make sense or add up in my headquote>

The Theory of Evolution summarised:

Random genetic mutations occur in organisms all the time. Some of these are detrimental to the organism (they make the organism less suited to its environment), some have no effect, some are beneficial. What determines what is a beneficial, neutral or detrimental mutation is the surrounding environment. Organisms that get beneficial mutations are more likely to reproduce and pass on their genes.

Eventually, the descendants are dissimilar enough from their ancestors that they comprise a totally different species.

If a group is seperated from the rest of its species, different mutations may occur. Statistically speaking, it's almost certain diffferent mutations WILL occur. Thus, the group may, over time, end up following a different evolutionary path than the rest of the species, to the point where it can not even be said to be part of the same species. If this group is then reunited with the original species (which, by now, may be quite different), interbreeding would be impossible.

Does it make sense now?

Religious side note:

The Roman Catholic church has no problem with evolution (or, for that matter, the Big Bang) so quite why your parents had you excused is beyond me.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Hudizzle17 1]

Originally posted by: clhigh7

personally ,being roman catholic, i believe in creationism only but i dont try an shove my religion an beliefs down other peoples throats. i actually haven't learned about evolution at all,everytime its been brought up in school my parents had me excused from class but i sorta get an idea an it just doesnt really make sense or add up in my headquote>

I'm quite surprised you, being a Roman Catholic, apparently don't believe evolution is a fact. The Roman Catholic Church has accepted evolution, though their idea is different in that they think evolution was sparked by a god, and was and is guided by god. Still rather ridiculous, but at least they accepted part of reality.

How your parents would not know their own church's position is, as Astronelson said, beyond me.

I also find it quite disappointing that your parents took that sort of action. That's blatant willful ignorance on their part, much like someone not wanting to hear the truth by sticking their fingers in their ears and going "blahblahblahblahblahblahblah I don't want to hear it, I don't care blahblahblahblahblah". It's how a lot of religious folk seem to hold up their "faith", by plain ignorance.. Either through willful ignorance, or honest misunderstanding and misguidance, perhaps brought on by those who are willfully ignorant.

Hopefully you will eventually learn much more about evolution and the cosmos and everything else surrounding it, and come to an understanding.. or at least just about evolution, since the knowledge of it is something your parents deprived you of (Which I find sad).

It may not make sense to you now, and it might never, depending on what your thought process is and what you learn, but one thing for sure is that no matter, evolution is still a part of reality.

I do appreciate that you don't shove your beliefs down others' throats though, mainly the creationism thing. That seems to be a quality many Catholics possess, to some extent or another.. My aunt and grandmother are Catholic, my aunt being VERY Catholic, it seems, with crosses and Jesus and Mary figures all around and books and stuff concerning the Vatican and the church and such and countless articles of prayer all about her house, but she and my grandma never talk about their religion or mention god or anything like that, at least not when me and my dad are around (they don't know I'm Atheist, but know that my dad is, at the very least, hardly interested in the church or religion).

I can't say the same for many other Christians, who's ability to "keep thy religion to thyself" is seemingly almost non-existent among many.

Now, when it comes to Evolution, it may seem like Atheists and agnostics and scientists and biologists and such are trying to push or shove some sort of belief or religion on you when they talk to you about evolution, which is an excuse made by many religious people in order to validate their own view by saying evolution is also just a belief and Atheism a religion, but it's simply not. I've already discussed how Atheism isn't a religion, and almost everybody would tell you the same thing... A good way to put it is a quote I picked up from youtube which says "Atheism is a religion in the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." As for evolution, I've also discussed how some people call it a religion, and how some attach it only to Atheism, but evolution is simply a part of reality, it's not a religion, it's not a "belief" in any religious sense, and it's not purely Atheistic. When people talk about it to you, as well as about the big bang, abiogenesis, the formation of planets and stars and galaxies, the origins and the nature of the cosmos and everything else in it, from black holes and red giants and white dwarfs, to atoms and molecules and quarks and energy and physics, etc. etc., they aren't trying to shove religious views and beliefs down your throat, they're trying to open your eyes to an enriching and vast reality, far more interesting, awe-inspiring , overwhelming and stupefying than any fairy tale in any holy book in any religion. But, one does have to have at least some interest in science, which is something most people don't seem to have, and they seem to have even less of an understanding of even the simplest parts of it all, which is why the fairy tales of the holy books of the world's religions continue to be popular among many, and probably will be for some time yet... Everything is already claimed to be explained, and to be explained simply, by scripture, and one doesn't have to know or understand anything to believe it.

Of course you didn't say that any of that was shoving religion down one's throat in any specific way, but I think it's always something important to bring up whenever someone mentions "shoving religion down peoples' throats."

[fukuda 351]

Please keep the discussion civil

[Sam 163]

Please remember to be kind to each other and to keep discussion polite.The aim is to discuss the issues, not each other.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I see very little incivility here recently, but a reminder can't hurt.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: clhigh7

personally ,being roman catholic, i believe in creationism only but i don't try an shove my religion an beliefs down other peoples throats. i actually haven't learned about evolution at all,every time its been brought up in school my parents had me excused from class but i sort of get an idea an it just doesn't really make sense or add up in my headquote>

Your Roman Catholic upbringing is poor.  I am a Roman Catholic born and bred.  Open mindedness is definitely part of Church teachings.  Some of my most respected teachers were scientists, and the pastor of one of my parishes when I was growing up held a doctorate in chemistry among his other degrees.  I think you need to have a talk with your parish priest and your parents.  The Church is not in the ignorance business.

Lacey14: Belief in a formalized god or deity is not necessary.  You simply can't deny that there is too much organization in the universe for it to be pure chance.  The more you know, the more you are astonished.  So go out under a clear night sky and look up.  If you don't feel a sense of wonderment, you need help.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Barbarossa:  Actually, I am equivocal on this.  However, I do think people should think for themselves.  You know "If you always do what you've always done, you always get what you always got." is not really a truism especially these days.  Some parents believe it, though.

[saltandsauce 0]

even though I am Catholic enough to go to Mass and Benediction. I don't beleive in literal creationism. It isn't in Catechism of the Catholic Church. what IS in Catechism is 1, God created the world/universe. 2, this was good. 3, God created man (meh i'm i'm not politically correct and as cynical women joke. "he practiced before getting perfection") 4, this was very good

anyone who knows me from chat will be astounded at this, considering how bigoted and generally annoying I am on matters like this.

1st story has man created last. 2nd story has man created 1st and Adam gets to name them. case closed

some people don't belive in God becuase they view God in an immature way, they view God as "Santa Claus" i.e. I pray = I get

God is not an orgainised idea and it's not for the lateral or rationalists. God is a more Romantic idea (Romantic being diametrically opposed to rational - nothing to do with love) and most people romance is dead but slightly fewer believe God is "dead" at least to the western world.

Originally posted by: Hudizzle17

I do appreciate that you don't shove your beliefs down others' throats

though, mainly the creationism thing. That seems to be a quality many

Catholics possess, to some extent or another.. My aunt and grandmother

are Catholic, my aunt being VERY Catholic, it seems, with crosses and

Jesus and Mary figures all around and books and stuff concerning the

Vatican and the church and such and countless articles of prayer all

about her house, but she and my grandma never talk about their religion

or mention god or anything like that, at least not when me and my dad

are around (they don't know I'm Atheist, but know that my dad is, at

the very least, hardly interested in the church or religion).

quote>

that's the same with my family, most of them rarely even talk about it (my mother's side is Catholic my dad's is loosely Calvinist) my mother's side has crucifixes in each room in a prominent place and a little photos of Popes gone by but (my aunt who used to be a religious sister- that's a nun to you) will talk about regular stuff and gossip, sometimes swear etc. without ever talking about faith unless the guest brings it up.

Atheism is an organised set of beliefs not just about God but has doctrine as well (pro-abortion usually, definate pro-contraception and pro-womens rights, and for a lot, pro-Palestine) it merely lack a book, or place of worship

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

Atheism is an organised set of beliefs not just about God but has doctrine as well (pro-abortion usually, definate pro-contraception and pro-womens rights, and for a lot, pro-Palestine) it merely lack a book, or place of worshipquote>

No, "atheism" means believing that there is no god, nothing more. Just as "monotheism" means belief in one god, and "polytheism" means belief in multiple gods.

Being pro-abortion, pro-contraception, pro-women's rights, pro-palestine, etc. is not "atheist doctrine". There is no such thing. They are political views, generally liberal. And yes, atheists tend to be more liberal than conservative, but... there is no rule about that, written or unwritten. It's merely because atheism is "progressive" and so is liberalism - while religion is "traditional" and so is conservativism.

You can be an Atheist and be pro-life, anti-contraception, etc, There is no contradiction.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

even though I am Catholic enough to go to Mass and Benediction. I don't beleive in literal creationism. It isn't in Catechism of the Catholic Church. what IS in Catechism is 1, God created the world/universe. 2, this was good. 3, God created man (meh i'm i'm not politically correct and as cynical women joke. "he practiced before getting perfection") 4, this was very good

anyone who knows me from chat will be astounded at this, considering how bigoted and generally annoying I am on matters like this.

1st story has man created last. 2nd story has man created 1st and Adam gets to name them. case closed

some people don't belive in God becuase they view God in an immature way, they view God as "Santa Claus" i.e. I pray = I get

God is not an orgainised idea and it's not for the lateral or rationalists. God is a more Romantic idea (Romantic being diametrically opposed to rational - nothing to do with love) and most people romance is dead but slightly fewer believe God is "dead" at least to the western world.

quote>

Very few people would say that gods and Santa Claus are the same things. They do have different descriptions by those who "believe" in them.

However, the Christian God and Santa Claus are the same in that facts, reality, and logic disprove their existence. It is certainly well within the capability of your brain to ignore facts, reality, and logic, but if you do, you will never discover the truth about anything. Thales took it on faith that the world was made of water. Later scientists in the 19^th century used facts, reality, and logic to prove that the world is not made up of water, it is made up of atoms.

If you had always taken it on faith that everything was made of water, then you would not have discovered the truth, which I assume is the objective of believers (or at least most of them).

Atheism is an organised set of beliefs not just about God but has doctrine as well (pro-abortion usually, definate pro-contraception and pro-womens rights, and for a lot, pro-Palestine) it merely lack a book, or place of worship

quote>

Atheism is not an organized set of beliefs. It isn't even a belief at all. Atheism is the lack of a belief in the existence of god. That is the definition of atheism, no more, no less. There is no associated doctrine with atheism, other than it being incorporated into the varying personal philosophies of atheists.

Most atheists do tend to be progressive or liberal, but this is mainly due to conservatism and traditional beliefs being connected to a belief in god. Where would the Republican party be without a god to cling to?

And also, if any believers are attempting to equate atheism with their beliefs, it doesn't make their own beliefs any less rediculous.