BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Sep 14 - 10:00 PM

In many cases hanging onto beliefs which contradict science... does little harm

And in a great many more cases it does a great deal of harm. As is usually the case when one substitutes fiction and superstition for reality and fact.

There are serious real world consequences for believing nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 02:19 AM

"perhaps you would like to give an example of evolutionary science that threatens the bible."

Oh, I don't know, evidence for deep time, dinosaurs etc., etc.,etc. For God's sake, pete, you know what the examples are - and if you don't, go and read Darwin and Dawkins (although you won't will you?). And then you'll re-gurgitate some 'facts', that you got off some redneck 'creationist' website, that claim to refute that evidence - and round and round we will go.

Leaving aside evolutionary science, here's an example of just plain common sense that threatens (a literal interpretation of)the Bible: You couldn't possibly get two of every living thing onto Noah's Ark - no matter how big it was. And if somehow you could get two of every living thing onto Noah's Ark, there would not be enough genetic variation in their populations to save them in the long run.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 04:25 AM

I would never say faith doesn't harm.

There are far too many people fucked up, abused and radicalised to say faith isn't harmful. Every King in history has had his preachers to spread his message and control his subjects.

Not harmful? Advocating stupid fantasy explanations to the world around us when objective discovery reveals more wonder than the restrictive shallow explanations of religion could ever dream of?

Our children deserve better.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 06:07 AM

As to harm, why confuse a belief in a god and the politics of organized religion? They clearly differ. Many folks have a" hang up" with the previous role of organized religion, which has many negative impacts (in relationship to Christianity this impact has declined significantly), and use this history try to "dictate" what others choose to personally believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 08:25 AM

"As to harm, why confuse a belief in a god and the politics of organized religion?"

Because they're inextricably entwined. They don't "clearly differ". People don't usually worship alone, do they?

"Many folks have a" hang up" with the previous role of organized religion, ..."

Previous? I've just had a conversation with my Iranian barber about the present role of organised religion in his country.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 08:33 AM

Martin Luther admonished us that Reason was "the devil's whore." He blamed Aristotle personally for utilizing it too ingeniously in codifying logic. It may have been the worst thing since the Fall.

Reason, Luther believed, works to seduce us from faith and thus does the devil's work. For real. Do not consort with Reason. If you can help it.

If you buy that, fine. But it does make rational discussion impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 09:00 AM

""Because they're inextricably entwined. They don't "clearly differ".

Not at all- a check on more recent surveys show fewer and fewer Christian folks attend church on a regular- or even any basis, and choose their own course on life decisions, versus that dictated by an organized religion (Joe O has discussed this in detail many times, regarding the RCs).

"People dont worship alone, do they?"

That assumption, dressed up in a question, leads one to assume all Christian folks have a need to "worship" anything at all- likely an error in todays world? An increasing number of folks who say they live in a God, but do not attend a church would lead one to a clear answer. The question reminds me of the old song lyrics, "living in the past, is not living at all".

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 09:22 AM

(in relationship to Christianity this impact has declined significantly)

We're living in a post-religious age. I doubt anyone believes in God in the same way they did even 200 years ago, let alone 2,000. Religion is elective, like Folk Music, or Fantasy Role Play, any other essentially hobbyist pursuits that in no way reflect the current status of humanity as a whole where spirituality is more likely to found in the writings of atheistic scientists such as the late Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins, than it is in the mumbo-jumbo of 'believers', whose message is invariable one of despotic obedience to a terrible law. Christianity represents a very terrible law - ethically and morally its foundations are one of an all powerful God who created humanity simply to indulge his misanthropic jealousy. We can see this in the effects of Roman Catholic Doctrine on such matters as homosexuality, contraception, the status of women and abortion which remain the cause of untold misery and atrocity getting worse by the day.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 09:29 AM

An interesting perspective on the declining influence of organized Christian religions and a belief in a God in today's Christian world, JB.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 09:36 AM

Ed T's link from yesterday is worth a look by everyone on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 10:38 AM

"...ethically and morally its foundations are one of an all powerful God who created humanity simply to indulge his misanthropic jealousy"

One of the major flaws of Christianity is the contradiction between the loving, benevolent God presented by those with faith and the reality we see around us every day, where human suffering is ubiquitous, where lies and deceit are part and parcel of everyday life, so much so we don't even consider them most of the time. I don't know why the misanthropic God of a group of desert tribespeople has become so popular, but the core ethics and morality of the various abrahamic religions do have a source.

If we take Christ's teaching of compassion and love as being the real core of Christianity, we can also recognise these concepts in many disparate religious philosophies. They are universal, deeply held values held by people regardless of their religious beliefs. Tolerance, compassion, altruism and love are an integral part of the human condition and not some God-given gift we previously lacked. We evolved to be like this.

Sagan knew this, and he understood we don't need a god to understand the preciousness and beauty of all life and the universe of which we are a conscious part of. This is way more profound than any story imagined by man, and all these religions catechisms, teachings and shallow attempts to impose rule are crude attempts to codify and explain this deep, wondrous and scientifically explicable core of our very being. That we don't recognise how incredible that is and fail to reach our potential and understand the innate beauty of everything is one of our most problematical flaws as a species.

We are the universe made conscious, curious, enquiring and intelligent, contemplating it's own nature and origin and that is true profundity.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 10:56 AM

I love to be amazed by the wonder of the universe, the fascination you can have with quantum mechanics, the intense beauty of discovering how we got to how and where we are today.

Why would anybody prefer anything as mundane and restrictive as the imagination reduced bible could ever offer?

As I keep saying, and people who can't see beyond their in built superstition get offended by.. Most people are far too sophisticated to actually believe, and of those who have a belief, those who believe think that having belief is the same thing so get confused when what they call boutique christians call the bible a set of fictitious stories.

I tell you, its about time rational people stopped humouring them and (in the case of The UK) allowing them to disregard laws designed to protect the rights of all equally.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 11:20 AM

> but the core ethics and morality of the various abrahamic religions do have a source.

Which is thus human and encouraging.

BTW, have you ever observed that the popular understanding of "Thou shalt not kill" has evolved to encompass much more than the literal biblical injunction of "Thou shalt not murder"? Are some theologies then becoming more humane, even though they originate with screwed-up human beings?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 12:25 PM

Who knows Stu, your last post could be found in the internet rubble of the future, forming the basis of a new organized religion? LOL

Why should human-kind not revere such good social messages, rather than belittle them? If there were "one source of all of this", should one expect the messages to be different from the various historic delivery sources?

Of course most religions, even buddhism, proposes goodness and kindness to others. How humans (and organized religions) interpret and deliver these messages is much of what leads to the many historic downsides of organized religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 12:40 PM

I strongly suspect that the most insidious aspect of Christianity is its teaching that man was made by God to have 'dominion over the Earth and everything in it'. In fact, at this moment in time, for all of our much vaunted 'God given' 'intelligence', we are nothing more than locusts devouring the Earth. And it's happening blindingly fast. I've noticed the environment deteriorating noticeably around me in my lifetime - and my lifetime is no more than an infinitesimally small fraction of a geological eye blink! We're basically fucked - we're extinct already! And when we're gone, all of these arguments about religion will mean fuck all (as will art and science and history etc., etc., etc.).

Apparently we of the 'end times' are living through the sixth episode of extinction in the history of the planet. Although, of course,life, in some form, will continue after us.

The only thing which gives me the vaguest thread of hope is that this sixth extinction is being studied, in meticulous detail, by representatives of the causal agent. And that's yet another reason why we need to dump the supreme irrelevance of religion and concentrate on the thing that might (only just) save us - science and the understanding it gives us of who we are and how we relate to the rest of the planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 12:44 PM

U.S. church sign:

"God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts"


http://www.beliefnet.com/Inspiration/Funny-Church-Signs.aspx?b=1&p=25&utm_campaign=Yahoo&utm_medium=paid_distribution&utm_source

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 12:51 PM

""Apparently we of the 'end times' are living through the sixth episode of extinction in the history of the planet. Although, of course,life, in some form, will continue after us. ""

So, if one excludes the notion of the importance of the human life form, why would that be a bad thing, and not just another aspect of the evolution of tge various life forms?

What would be your answer to that?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 01:02 PM

well, I read the link, ed. as usual there is the confusing of observational , testable, repeatable, experimental science , with evolutionism that can only superficially, at best equate with the former. dropping cannonballs off towers is of the first, and digging up some fossil, for example, is of the latter. the researchers might not even agree on it. there is interpretation of data, not experimental science, as in the gravity experiment.
evolutionists, of course love to make us think that these are the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 01:07 PM

I "believe" you missed the main points in the article Pete7*.

Regardless, whatever interpretation turns your crank works fine with me:)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 01:09 PM

lost another post last night. I think I am getting behind.

several things...first, thanks to EdT for the vote of confidence in my 'style'. I try to discuss/debate only with those who listen ... whether they agree with me or not. Agreement is not required- civility is. It is awkward... to me, anyway... to have the not-so-civil on my side of the issue, 'helping'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

so, a reply to Pete from several days ago:
Pete, you said
"I am not claiming that everything must be known before a theory can be considered sound, but just saying it is , because you could cite any or all of 379 sites, is not providing any other evidence than that 379 sites say it is true !. I have rarely quoted bible, so that part of your charge is hardly relevant ..straw man , maybe...I have always admitted my faith position. however, I regard it as bolstered by the evidence...according to experimental, observational science....against the evolution story.
if you can bring evidence ,other than appeals to numbers/authority you might make a case,..."

First, "straw man" is not relevant...but bible is always relevant as a general case, as it form the basis of your position. You say that it..(the authority of the bible) is supported by "experimental, observational science". Some biblical history IS obviously supported.... certain kings, places and stories were referred to in other writings.... some can still be visited. None of this supports taking everything in the bible literally as a basis for 'faith' in the many complex and often contradictory religious claims. How can I say it? Faith is faith is faith....the word MEANS belief in something that cannot BE proven by science or observation.
   When you deny the strength of 379..or 1486.. sites & studies, you undermine the very basis of what it means to have experts who collect and correlate data! If the topic were farming practices, or the efficiency of diesel engines or of the relative use of fire retardant materials, you'd not have too much difficulty in seeing the value of agreements of experts, even if a few could be found who disagreed on certain concepts.
But when the topic is carbon dating of human remains back to 35,000 years or so, or comparative DNA studies between humans and other primates, or contradictory translations of ancient documents, you place **subjective filters** based on interpretation of biblical passages between the data and its analysis. Then you cite 'creation scientists' who use the same filters to deny the collective wisdom of the vast majority.
You can 'believe' that the basic origin of "everything" is spiritual... *shrug*... but it is not rational to insert a religious view to decide issues which are not in its realm of study. The very process of doing so is circular and depends on assuming the very things which are being used AS proof.

When I was in high school, 60 years ago, I was shown the argument:
1)God is, by definition, the most perfect being that can exist.
2)The most perfect being must obviously have existence as one of its attributes'
3)Therefore, God exists.

I shook my head in awe at the clear flaws in that, even though I didn't then know the technical words for its errors. Since then, I have seen many arguments (not all religious) based on similar misunderstanding of reason. In the above example, #1 implicitly assumes #3. #3 'may' be correct, but the syllogism is totally flawed. In the same way, the attempt to use logic to refute the definitions and conclusions of science one does not approve of, must itself be subject to the rules OF logic, and not just arbitrarily 'interpreted'. If that sounds complicated, read it again...carefully.

Science is designed to be self-correcting when new data is found. The process can be slow & awkward in some cases, but when many experts attack the same issues, progress usually results. Gould explains this in great detail in the early chapters of "Wonderful Life"..the story of the Burgess Shale. The early researchers assumed that the strange fossils they found were just odd forms of current phyla. It took a number of years and some technological advances and some "ah-ha!" insights to re-evaluate most specimens as totally different, many eons extinct forms. Once that barrier was broken, many other things fell into place about age, continental drift, tectonic uplift and the means of preservation. No one claims that 'we' are descended specifically from things like Wiwaxia, but there is NO compelling, testable evidence that we 'just appeared' about 8000 years ago. God may have kick-started everything, but he left it to us to sort out the details as best we can.....

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 01:23 PM

Fundamentally, how can you have a discussion on any philosophical basis with someone who believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden?

I chat in the pub with the most ill informed bores you could imagine about whatever subject you like, but in my past work, I doubt I would tolerate such views or factor them in our deliberations. Same with religion. My brother in law, a vicar, had to move house and all the cost etc, I wanted to help. "The Lord will provide" he said, declining politely. Fine, and I said "that's nice." Between you and I, I think he 's a fucking looney, but of course in real life, we don't say that. We just hope his family isn't being denied any of the comforts we can give them just because he puts a fairy story above his responsibility to his wife and kids.

The internet is like a few pints. Say it like it is...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 01:30 PM

Wow... a lot happened while I was composing.

Regarding EdTs link on "not believing in science", it is startling on one hand to see the steady 46% here who favor the "within 10,000 years" idea of human existence, but they have done a decent job of show how just "being human" colors our way of coming to conclusions.

I have argued for years that simpler answers just 'feel better', and don't require so much taxing study. Add to that the natural tendency to 'like' the simple answers that are more emotionally satisfying, and you have a formula for widespread ignorance. (NOT 'stupidity'... that is inability to learn. Ignorance is just not being aware.... whether thru carelessness or being misled by others.)
No one can do all the basic research and learn all the math & science required, but almost anyone can absorb the basic claims of a concept they already 'like' the feel of. In today's world there are so many things competing for our attention... from political problems to internet forums (grin) to just how to keep the kids fed. No wonder following the myriad working of science is not topmost in many minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 01:45 PM

well, shimrod, where do you think I,m going to get the other side of the story to counter all the Darwin propaganda ?. it is surely evident that I have read more of your evolutionist stuff than you have of creationist.
"...evidence of deep time..."    which is?
"..dinosaurs..." maybe, you have,nt even read my posts. the discovery of stuff that should not have survived[ found in dino bone]is evidence that the dinos could not possibly be as old as alleged. but as I keep saying, you got real faith, and are waiting for observational science to expand to accommodate evolutionary belief.
as to the ark, it has been estimated that all the requisite passengers needed to repopulate after the flood, would fit with room to spare, on the 450 long, 3 deck construction. my information is that there would be diverse genetic information on board to diversify after, producing the array of life we now have.
btw, what is your area of science, and how does it confirm Darwinism for you?.
..

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 02:29 PM

" it has been estimated that all the requisite passengers needed to repopulate after the flood,..."

Would that include invertebrates - beetles, butterflies and moths, bugs, flies, bees and wasps, spiders, slugs and snails etc., etc., etc., pete?
And what about plants? Would there have been enough room for redwoods and oaks and birches and maples as well as ferns, mosses, primroses, saxifrages, tulips, narcissi, daisies, buttercups, irises, forget-me-nots, orchids etc., etc., etc.?

"my information is that there would be diverse genetic information ..."

And what would be the source of that information, pete?
'redneckcreation.com' by any chance?

"the discovery of stuff that should not have survived[ found in dino bone]is evidence that the dinos could not possibly be as old as alleged ..."

Yes, I dimly remember some of that stuff from previous threads. But when a scientist finds an (alleged in this case) anomaly she/he doesn't immediately throw up her/his hands and shout: "Oh no! The whole of modern science must be wrong and the Bible must be right!" That's illogical and stupid (but par for the course for creationists, I suppose).

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 02:37 PM

My brother in law, a vicar, had to move house and all the cost etc, I wanted to help. "The Lord will provide" he said, declining politely. Fine, and I said "that's nice." Between you and I, I think he 's a fucking looney, but of course in real life, we don't say that. We just hope his family isn't being denied any of the comforts we can give them just because he puts a fairy story above his responsibility to his wife and kids.

Musket:

How could he determine that your offer of help was not the way the Lord chose to provide?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 02:56 PM

Pete.. we have gone over that "discovery of stuff that should not have survived" several times. Finding of soft tissue was unexpected, but once discovered after a new type of test it had to be investigated.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/soft-tissue-dinosaur-fossil1.htm Read about it...carefully! Nothing in there contradicts the basic age of the find.. it merely adds new data to what can happen under certain conditions.
You cannot just keep referring to an argument that has been refuted without a relevant counter argument! "It shouldn't be there!" is not relevant if it WAS there!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 05:53 PM

But you "weren't there," I "wasn't there," Creationists "weren't there."

So - according to some - anything is possible!

Why argue with a viewpoint that, combined with a rejection of Reason, leads to blind belief in whatever sounds good?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 06:22 PM

Why argue with a viewpoint that, combined with a rejection of Reason, leads to blind belief in whatever sounds good?

Because that's what ignorant, deluded idiots DO!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Sep 14 - 08:23 PM

How do you, Greg, distinguish between "ignorant, deluded idiots" and average people who just have a deep, emotional commitment to a church and its doctrines? Do you simply define anyone who doesn't 'see' the reason & logic the same way as you & I as 'idiot's?
   I have known quite intelligent people I considered to be "ignorant & deluded" but who had been deluded & rendered ignorant by very clever means. It can be very awkward to back out of some 'delusions', especially when one's entire life has been permeated by the situation.

Remember Jonestown?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 02:54 AM

Here's a very simple question for pete:

Why should I believe the account of 'creation' that is written in the Bible rather than the reality revealed by modern science?

I wonder if I'll get an answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 03:45 AM

Quick answer for you, Shimrod: you shouldn't "believe" any ancient creation story.

But I don't think you should dismiss them, either. There's too much that can be learned from them. The absolutists will tell you either that they should be believed completely as absolute truth, or they should be dismissed completely as absolute falsehood.

My response to both sides is, "Not so fast, buddy."

But what is the value of these ancient sacred writings? It seems to me that modern "enlightened" people are quick to dismiss and ridicule the myths of their own culture, while sometimes holding the myths of foreign cultures in esteem? What is it that determines what is "good myth" and "bad myth"? Personally, I tend to think it's all mostly good, and worthy of consideration.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:06 AM

Thanks, Joe. A sane and rational answer as ever. But I'm really interested in pete's answer to my question.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:18 AM

Uncle Dave. That reasoning leads to drink and I am trying to lose weight...

Joe. I'm not sure anybody is dismissing stories. Most on here are dismissing so called historical accounts though.

In the meantime, pete is finding a way for marsupials to leave the ark and swim to the antipodes.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 04:35 AM

Good Myth inspires the soul with dreams of perfect wonder and no one is left under any doubt as to its allegorical (at best) relationship with Truth which it nevertheless manages to enrich by simply being told. Bad Myth. OTOH, oppresses the soul with lurid histories that glorify rape, massacre, oppression, racism, misogyny, infanticide, and every other human atrocity ever devised in the name of a totalitarian Godhead.

Good Myth is devised to tell us about ourselves and our sacred relationship with Nature in archetypes, dreams, patterns and fluid morphologies that were ancient when the stones of Avebury were being raised. Bad Myth, OTOH, is devised to be enforced as Truth at the point of axe and sword and is thus drenched, every word, in the blood of the countless millions of innocent souls who have been massacred to that end.

Sadly, the ancient sacred writings of the bible belong very firmly to this latter category.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 05:56 AM

"is evidence that the dinos could not possibly be as old as alleged."

Oh pete.


"It seems to me that modern "enlightened" people are quick to dismiss and ridicule the myths of their own culture..."

Like many, I hold the myths of my own culture very close to m y heard. Jack says it better than I ever could.

An like he says, Christian culture is a relative newcomer to my own traditions, which are far more relevant than those of some desert nomads.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 05:57 AM

Foithermore...

Bad Myth is recounted by rote into the numb skulls of the dead-eyed offspring of The Faithful to inhibit, repress and propagate ignorance in the name of absolute truth by dry & joyless pedagogues convinced of the righteousness of their cause and woe to any child who doesn't conform. Bad Myth abuses the natural joys of childhood inspiring a lifetime of guilt and routinely obedience in dread terror of the hellish torments consequent on any form of deviance. Bad Myth teaches that We are right, and that They are wrong; that We are not They, and that They are worse than We are.

Good Myth, OTOH, inspires the laughter of children and fills their eyes with a light that is an honour for any storyteller to behold in the realisation that they are but a conduit in a process of inspirational recounting in which human individuality is magnified in the name of an all-inclusive objectivism in which the wonders of the universe are there to be questioned, verified, understood merely as part of one evolving brother-sisterhood of 50,000 years of human cultural evolution that seeks and celebrates Unity in Diversity. Good Myth is Myth Unity in which there is no We let alone They for all is togetherness as part of the oneness of The Cosmos which is the whole of the case.

To paraphrase Chris Cutler : Bad Myth deals in force and reaction; Good Myth deals in self-criticism and revolution.

*

Interesting that the only Good Stuff in the bible was filched from elsewhere and attached to seasonal traditions derived from pagan archetypes in which Nature is duly revered by way of rebirth and renewal inspiring a host of vernacular lore by way of an oral apocrypha which is pretty suspect however so intriguing. In folk song we have The Bitter Withy and The Cherry Tree Carol, to name but two; these intrigue because there's no priest up there telling us it's true by way of corporate mind-fuck. And still they celebrate the birth of Jesus on the Winter Solstice, and his death on the first Friday after the first Full Moon after the Spring Equinox.

A simple equation : Whenever Myth becomes in anyway True, it becomes irreversibly Bad. In this sense the bible is positively putrid.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:34 AM

This link relates to different approaches used to interpret the Bible.

I post it for Petes consideration. Others are free to review the link. But, if you are offended by people who interpret a book you dont have any use for, what would be the point?


For Pete7* consideration 

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:38 AM

Interesting that guest Musket knows how to abuse children?

Hopefully the moderators will spare us any further details? Musket is always logged in.

---

There was a flurry of trollish posts overnight, and alas, many of them abused the good name of "Musket." They are gone, but there may appear to be blips in threads where individuals responded with disbelief to the spoofed posts. --mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 06:53 AM

But, if you are offended by people who interpret a book you dont have any use for, what would be the point?

The biggest Myths inherent in the bible, is that it's a) God's Word and, therefore b) Sacred. This is has been the source and scourge of humanity for millennia and is cause enough for offence whether we have any use for it or not.

Interpret it any way you like, it still reads like the ravings of a mad horse and represents the very worst humanity has ever dreamt of. Starless and bible-black; the nightmare continues not just for those who have elected to believe in it, but to those whose very innocence is afflicted by it noxious content.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 07:26 AM

Why be shy, why not clearly state you hate the Bible, JB, and by association, anyone who has a contrary opinion. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 07:54 AM

Life's too short for hatred, Ed. We're here to love, be joyful & engender liberation through learning in a Cosmos of infinite beauty and wonderment. To this end, we must forever be wary of the obstacles in the path to all-inclusive objective enlighenment. The bible is one such obstacle - be it in terms of fundamentalist literalism or allegorical liberalism, much less the suffering it has caused, and continues to cause, thousands of years down the line.

It's more about fear than hate; fear of the sort of goodness it inspires in the dark hearts of the faithful; fearful that the guttering candle-flames of Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking et al will soon be snuffed out by a literal starless & bible-blackness and consigned to same fate as the Ionian Philosophers of 500-600 BCE.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 08:08 AM

I agree JB.

My life experience is kindness and understanding of other perspectives can do more to "open ears", and minds, versus an alternative aporoach. I state that with an understanding that other approaches at times also make an impact - just not for me, and IMO not likely here and less likely on this topic. That is, of course, if the desired result is to change viewpoints, not just silence them?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 08:49 AM

"Good Myth" encourages good: like the Good Samaritan.

"Bad Myth" encourages bad: like the idea that "God hates unbelievers."

"Great Myth" encourages thought: like Job and the Trojan War.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 09:37 AM

"The God Deusion" and "The Demon Haunted World" and "The Martyrdom of Man" also encourage thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 09:48 AM

Scientific reasoning (as an abstraction) has certainly been a tremendous boon to mankind.

Unfortunately you can't separate the reasoning from the reasoner.

Hence nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, among other gifts of science.

Whether the existence of the human race is enhanced by science or eliminated by it remains to be seen.

(Just trying to complicate the issue.)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 10:07 AM

More importantly, you can't separate the un-reasoning from the non-reasoner.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 10:11 AM

Still no answer to my recent question from pete. Funny that!

Anyway, here it is again, pete:

"Why should I believe the account of 'creation' that is written in the Bible rather than the reality revealed by modern science?"

Still waiting for an answer, pete ...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 10:29 AM

Does anybody on this forum personally know anyone who is not an American who denies biological reality as revealed through science? In this I include people who know biology but say it doesn't apply to them because they were created, people who refuse to learn the biology because it's wrong, obviously, since everything was created, and people who won't even let their children learn biology either because ditto.

My take on people from anywhere else is yeah, biology is real, and we learn it in school, but I am still somehow a child of god with an undying soul (or you can just stop at "biology is real" if you are an atheist).

I wish that the American freedom of religion hadn't mutated into freedom from information that contradicts my religion. The way science is taught here, with "respect" for "beliefs" in counter-reality, has done generations of my fellow citizens a great disservice.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 10:55 AM

Mrzzy, you might find Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free by Charles P. Pierce of interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Sep 14 - 11:29 AM

Mrrzy.. I have known people who I suspect held that view, though we never got quite that far in discussing the idea. It is not always a good idea to prod them about such things, as one can either get sanctimonious preaching or cold, angry accusations regarding one's destiny. It just isn't worth stirring up a hornet's nest.

I discuss it with Pete, because he is willing to compare views and has at least read some of the arguments on both sides and does not insult me for being 'unconverted'.

In the US, there certainly are many who hold the approximate view that Pete defends. I used to live in Kansas, and I can assure you they are there.

-------------------------------------------------------

Shimrod... Pete has essentially answered that general question a number of times. He admits it is 'faith', but then asserts that there is scientific evidence that supports HIS view against MY view.... we continue to discuss the details.

I asked in the original post for reasoned comment on BOTH the science of evolution...with examples... and on religion in so far as it disputes the scientific view of evolution. (At least that is what I intended to convey). It seems that this often devolves into general condemnation of religion in general, which is sometimes interesting, but not particularly helpful.... especially when it becomes a sarcastic dismissal of the intelligence of those with 'traditional' religious faith.

Ed T just posted an article about various ways to interpret the bible, in hopes the Pete will respond to it. The article is pretty good, though I doubt Pete will care to answer the lengthy questions it raises. Still, it is interesting and keeps to the basic topic I hoped for.


   I DO hope for more comments on evolution itself and the advances in science that support it.... like... a program I saw last night on the domestication of dogs. Here is one basic article
It seems that DNA/genetic studies have found the specific genes that allow the complex developments in canine characteristics (making dogs the most widely varied type of mammal on earth). It seems that certain pairs of genes make it possible for breeders to control a wide variety of dog sizes, shapes, hearing, smell, and general 'attitude'. The line in the program was (paraphrased): "A cow (bovine) anywhere will look like a cow, but dogs can vary from a Mexican Hairless to a Great Dane and still have 99% of the same genes."
The relevance of this is that we can essentially see evolution at work in dogs when WE selectively breed for certain traits! They now have a 'mutt' bred for sniffing explosives that simply LIKES to do it, and will make choices about where to search, instead of being led to suspicious areas by the trainer.
Other examples were given about herding dogs, digging dogs,..etc.

Repeating the point: By selective breeding, we are seeing traits develop that 'might' have developed accidentally over time in random evolutionary ways, but can be controlled and found in just a few generations.


(I am aware of Pete's general answer to these articles, but that's why I started this thread....there's more to a forum than Pete & I typing opinions... and LOTS more than people taking righteously indignant pot-shots at Pete *grin*)