I don't believe in evolution... (2)

[Nathan Poe]

Jane_The_Bane/Nathan Poe:

I have a feeling the whole idea of creationism (going back 7,000 some years) and perhaps religion is born out of a need to both not die and feel superior. My God can beat up your God...

Well, mythology springs from a need for security -- we're less afraid of the "unknown" when we have the means to explain it.

Religion, if you think about it, is basically a mythology which invites (and in many cases, requires) you to participate in it -- thus granting even more security.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Well, mythology springs from a need for security -- we're less afraid of the "unknown" when we have the means to explain it.

Religion, if you think about it, is basically a mythology which invites (and in many cases, requires) you to participate in it -- thus granting even more security.

It's even more convenient when the previously (and still) unknown confirms what you already wanted out of the world. I don't know, I think the Greek and Roman Gods are more rational than the Monotheistic one ever was.

 

[variant]

So why not call the subject "Adaptation", which is what Darwin observed. Adaptation is consistent with the Bible.

There are words that are really repulsive.

I believe the E-word (Evolution) is just as offensive to Christians as the N-word is to blacks.

Because adaptation leads to speciation leads to common decent which is also part of the theory of evolution.

But mostly scientists are in business to gather and analyze data not to care what you think.

Are we seriously going to split this thread again?

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's even more convenient when the previously (and still) unknown confirms what you already wanted out of the world. I don't know, I think the Greek and Roman Gods are more rational than the Monotheistic one ever was.

Not more rational, but more direct -- Christians have spent centuries coming up with excuses and rationalization for when their "perfect" god acts the same way as the Greek and Roman ones -- which were celebrated in G+R mythology.

Greek and Roman gods don't pretend to love you -- you respect them, and they help you -- if they feel like it.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Not more rational, but more direct -- Christians have spent centuries coming up with excuses and rationalization for when their "perfect" god acts the same way as the Greek and Roman ones -- which were celebrated in G+R mythology.

Greek and Roman gods don't pretend to love you -- you respect them, and they help you -- if they feel like it.

I just always thought the idea of them was more rational.

1. God's that are imperfect and varied that contribute to a series of events that lead to mankind present situation.
2. God that is perfect and never present to anyone but the believers. Everything wrong is really our (humanity's) fault.

The only reason we are stuck with 2 is because that is the meme that survived science and intelligent thinking.

Edited to fix grammar

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I like the Greek and Roman gods because they are much more interesting creations. They stand for abstract concepts personified, and teach us about ourselves while they demonstrate the mystery of the world we live in.

 

[Insane_Duck]

I like the Greek and Roman gods because they are much more interesting creations. They stand for abstract concepts personified, and teach us about ourselves while they demonstrate the mystery of the world we live in.

Yeah, I know the monotheistic God was made so common by Constantine and the Roman empire in the case of Christianity (Judaism is population wise a non-factor) but regarding Islam I'm puzzled. But the reason the Greek and Roman Gods died out is possibly lack of a central dogma? Either way they were a much better idea to begin with.

 

[mzungu]

Yeah, I know the monotheistic God was made so common by Constantine and the Roman empire in the case of Christianity (Judaism is population wise a non-factor) but regarding Islam I'm puzzled. But the reason the Greek and Roman Gods died out is possibly lack of a central dogma? Either way they were a much better idea to begin with.

The Greek Gods (The Romans adopted the Olympian Gods from the Greeks) not only had all the human traits but they were FALLIBLE too! This alone makes all the difference! The Greeks saw the human in their Gods and since the Gods were fallible then suffice it to say then everything could and was QUESTIONED. This led to the idea by many Ancient Greek Philosophers into believing things like:

All life originated from the sea and particularly from mud. Then it evolved and we humans are the end result of this evolution.

The Earth is not flat and the sun is the centre of our solar system.

The universe was neither created by Gods nor by man.

Nature is nothing more than natural balance between life forms.

Diseases are natural in cause and not demonic nor divine.

There must be life also in other worlds in the universe.

Everything is made up of atoms and chaos (Atom means indivisible or uncuttable and chaos meaning empty space. Democritus meant that all mass is made up of particles that can no longer be split. When the Atom was discovered in the early 20th century they called it Atom thinking that it was the smallest possible particle and thus could not be split).

Light has speed (Nero was toying with the basic concepts of relativity).

It is no wonder that by the mere right to question, these people advanced erudition and helped usher in reason over superstition.

If a god could make a mistake then we can and should question his/her actions and motives.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I think the reasons behind the adoption of Christianity as the state religion were quite pragmatic - and had nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with political practice.

See, with paganism, you did not have a singular body of clergy. If a ruler wanted the support of the priesthood, he needed to win favour with a whole bunch of heterogeneous groups. Plus, the polytheistic religions tended to be a lot more "democratic", insofar as they were not as closely tied to abstract power structures, and more closely aligned with, say, the cycle of seasons and so forth.

Now, compare that to the Church. You've got a monolithic, hierarchical group that teaches followers to be submissive, and claims that all worldly authority is given by God, and thus to be obeyed. The One God is not to be found in the seasons, or the mountains, or the streams - he's an abstract Ruler who cannot be approached directly, surrounded by a bureaucracy of his own, consisting of angels and saints.

Christianization was almost always a top-down affair, starting with kings and rulers who then forced their subjects to comply. They did so because it gave them more power.

 

[mzungu]

I think the reasons behind the adoption of Christianity as the state religion were quite pragmatic - and had nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with political practice.

See, with paganism, you did not have a singular body of clergy. If a ruler wanted the support of the priesthood, he needed to win favour with a whole bunch of heterogeneous groups. Plus, the polytheistic religions tended to be a lot more "democratic", insofar as they were not as closely tied to abstract power structures, and more closely aligned with, say, the cycle of seasons and so forth.

Now, compare that to the Church. You've got a monolithic, hierarchical group that teaches followers to be submissive, and claims that all worldly authority is given by God, and thus to be obeyed. The One God is not to be found in the seasons, or the mountains, or the streams - he's an abstract Ruler who cannot be approached directly, surrounded by a bureaucracy of his own, consisting of angels and saints.

Christianization was almost always a top-down affair, starting with kings and rulers who then forced their subjects to comply. They did so because it gave them more power.

Actually the proto Christians were a loose bunch unlike what came out to be with the Nicene Creed.

325 years after the death of Jesus; the heads of the various Christian sects got together and homogenised Christianity and added to it a hierarchical structure much like that of any political party.

The Proto Christians did not believe Jesus was God and neither did they believe in the concept of the trinity for it was invented by the Synod of Nicaea! The result? Evil in the name of God like the murder of Hypatia (Her death ushered in the dark ages of ignorance, superstition, and God as a political tool used as an ends to a means).

 

[Insane_Duck]

The Greek Gods (The Romans adopted the Olympian Gods from the Greeks) not only had all the human traits but they were FALLIBLE too! This alone makes all the difference! The Greeks saw the human in their Gods and since the Gods were fallible then suffice it to say then everything could and was QUESTIONED. This led to the idea by many Ancient Greek Philosophers into believing things like:

All life originated from the sea and particularly from mud. Then it evolved and we humans are the end result of this evolution.

The Earth is not flat and the sun is the centre of our solar system.

The universe was neither created by Gods nor by man.

Nature is nothing more than natural balance between life forms.

Diseases are natural in cause and not demonic nor divine.

There must be life also in other worlds in the universe.

Everything is made up of atoms and chaos (Atom means indivisible or uncuttable and chaos meaning empty space. Democritus meant that all mass is made up of particles that can no longer be split. When the Atom was discovered in the early 20th century they called it Atom thinking that it was the smallest possible particle and thus could not be split).

Light has speed (Nero was toying with the basic concepts of relativity).

It is no wonder that by the mere right to question, these people advanced erudition and helped usher in reason over superstition.

If a god could make a mistake then we can and should question his/her actions and motives.

I always thought this was a better (and more interesting) system.

 

[super animator]

The Greek Gods (The Romans adopted the Olympian Gods from the Greeks) not only had all the human traits but they were FALLIBLE too! This alone makes all the difference! The Greeks saw the human in their Gods and since the Gods were fallible then suffice it to say then everything could and was QUESTIONED.

Islamic consider their god to be infallible, and look the contributions that they made.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Islamic consider their god to be infallible, and look the contributions that they made.

So is the Christian God. And Islam actually made some pretty decent contributions back when the crusades were going on (the date is not that exactly, I know). The ottoman empire I believe?

Oh, and we were talking about monotheistic Gods being bad, that includes Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

Edit: Below link says ottoman empire came later.

 

[Insane_Duck]

I found a link regarding how medieval Islam was actually prospering scientifically and culturally.

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mzungu]

Islamic consider their god to be infallible, and look the contributions that they made.

Yes and we Greeks will forever be indebted to Islam for saving and introducing to Europe our ancient philosophy and other works of knowledge. The Muslim scholars helped usher in the renaissance in Europe!

However today many Islamic schools in Europe foment hate for the Western world. On the other side of the Atlantic the same thing applies with fundamentalist Christians who foment hate for other religions.

The time has come to rid ourselves of the bonds of superstitions and religions that justify murder, bigotry, racism and a plethora of other evils. I do however accept that religions do play a role in society and that there are many people who need to believe in a higher supernatural authority.

What I am against is the use of religion to further political aims and or to enforce a belief unto others.

Salaam!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is what all the Atheists say, but when the Bible predicts AIDS and then AIDS occurs 2000 years later, Atheists need to be concerned about all the other things said in the Bible.

Where does the Bible predict HIV/AIDS?

 

[mzungu]

That is what all the Atheists say, but when the Bible predicts AIDS and then AIDS occurs 2000 years later, Atheists need to be concerned about all the other things said in the Bible.

The Bible also predicted that the sun will burn the Earth in August 21 1823. Nothing happened!

 

[Nathan Poe]

That is what all the Atheists say, but when the Bible predicts AIDS and then AIDS occurs 2000 years later, Atheists need to be concerned about all the other things said in the Bible.

Except the Bible does no such thing, except in the minds of its more warped worshippers.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Romans 1:26-32, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgement of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

I believe the "worthy of death" is a prediction of AIDS.

You said the Bible predicted HIV/AIDS. I asked you where. You still haven't shown me where precisely the Bible literally predicts a disease called 'HIV/AIDS'. Where in the Bible, Clirus? Where?

 

[Nathan Poe]

You said the Bible predicted HIV/AIDS. I asked you where. You still haven't shown me where precisely the Bible literally predicts a disease called 'HIV/AIDS'. Where in the Bible, Clirus? Where?

Yet another in a long series of shoehorned "prophecies."

You gotta admit, those fundies are great at "predicting" things that have already happened.