Hi James. Fairness would dictate that you apply the same critisisms (sp?) to the other side of the argument. I don't see them supported by any better proofs.

Which brings us back to where we started, religion requires faith -- faith in the unseen. Logic will not get you to what was before all things, nor to what is to come at the end of all things. Now if someone were to walk up to you and say "I can consistently explain these things" (without the use of a weapon), we as people need to use our judgement to judge these things which are said. At the end of the day, we have to live (for lack of a better word since I'm talking about existance during and after life) with our choices.

BTW, could you explain through logic the existance of love (as opposed to lust, sex or self serving exchange)? By love I mean the unrequired, and unrewarded caring for others, in some cases at the expense of one's life. I'm not arguing that non-Christians don't love, they do, and are capable of as many loving acts as Christians. So examples of love outside the Christian ethic don't prove anything, nor do examples of lack of love within the Christian ethic prove anything since Christians fully admit to being sinful in spite of their efforts.

What is love?

Since this thread has gone off on somewhat of a tangent, I will add that religion (purely a construct of man) seems to be a natural (and needed) outgrowth of man's social nature (not evolution). Religion fulfills the needs of many people by providing them comfort and social interaction with other people and the feeling of "belonging". Many also use the teachings of their particular religion to answer questions such as "why are we here".

Having said that, just because religion is a natural and probably required facet of human civilization doesn't mean that the supreme beings identified in the religions actually exist (how many people still believe that Zeus, et al exists?). Also, I think people need to realize that there are some that do not need the spiritual comfort that religion brings to many. They are not anti-religious - they just do not have the same need for religion that most people do. They also do not like being told that they are wrong and "if you don't like it, you can leave the country" kinda stuff. I think that this is one point that the religious really struggle with - they can't understand *why* some people don't believe in the same way they do and try to justify it in their own minds. That's where the claims of "trying to justify your immoral lifestyle" etc., come into play. It's really not like that.

We can argue the finer points of whether or not a particular religion is historically accurate or not ad nauseum, but in the end it doesn't matter. The believer doesn't really care if he's right or not - he's going to believe anyway. He *needs* to believe. No amount of evidence is going to convince him that he is wrong. I don't think believers *should* be convinced that they are wrong. They need religion. It provides them with something tangible that they need in life. By the same token, the non-believer isn't going to be swayed or influenced by people quoting scripture, etc. because he has no need to believe. He has no void in his life that religion can fill. He doesn't *need* it (regardless of what the prosetlyizers think).

The thing that concerns me is the tremendous friction between believers and non-believers and even among people who believe different things. Why the hate? Why the intolerance? Look at the conflicts around the world. Most (all) of them have a difference of religious belief at their core. That's scary. Especially for the person who doesn't believe.

Off the soap box.

Mike

IROC, if there is nothing beyond nature, and humans evolved from single-cell entities, then everything we are, including our social structure and system of beliefs, is the result of evolution. A construct of man is simply a construct of nature, as man is a product of nature. Wouldn't this be the foundation of atheistic thinking?

"God" dies a little more each time one of his "creations" starts thinking objectively.

Religeous folk find this truth somewhat disturbing.

Nicely said Mike. I just want to take issue with one (secondary) point.

I think that it's a bit passive to say that believers never fall away, and that non-believers are never going to be "converted". I agree that assaulting people with scripture will not convert anyone, but making it available, and explaining it to non-believers who want to explore the subject can often set the stage or help someone whom is struggling with their beliefs or has a void. Both types of conversions happen all the time.

So this sort of thing is a natural "struggle" and will never be completely sorted out until the end of time. At least as Christians we're commanded to do it in a loving, non-violent manner. Alas, we do fall short of expectations some times.

I see your point, but I'd word it more along the lines of our evolution has provided with the intelligence and thought processes that *enable* us to contemplate the bigger picture. Evolution, in and of itself, hasn't "resulted" in our system of beliefs, but it has enabled us to develop them. It has also enabled us to search out and learn about the world around us through science. I am in awe of nature and the universe just as much (or more so) than the average person even though I perceive it as coming into existence through natural forces and according to logical laws.

I also don't think that "atheistic thinking" looks at evolution in this manner. Evolution is simply a process. Kinda like erosion. It just happens. Evolution, as a process, has so far resulted in the diversity of life on Earth. Erosion has resulted in neat things like the Grand Canyon.

Mike

Taz's Master wrote:
For those scientists that are convinced by evolution and are anti-religion, my question is this: Why are you inclined to stamp out a facet of ourselves that has evolved with us? Nature has provided us with a desire to believe in God and develop religion, and this has been a help in our ascendence (sic)to planet's dominant organism. Do you not believe that man's interest in religion and God is a product of evolution, or have you decided to live outside of the natural world?



This is a serious question? You have sent time formulating this? Wow.
OK, there are many things that have developed in our evolution that we try to control. Birth sex (evidence of this goes back thousands of years), health, disease, birth defects, all types of breeding results, cancer, violence, bigotry, etc. All of these things are natural, and yet we have tried or succeeded in altering them. Just because something is “natural” doesn’t mean it is good (nor bad).

Nature has predisposed some of us to become drug addicts or alcoholics. Gene research indicates this is a difference between the majority who are not susceptible and those that are. Should we not try to stamp out this weakness?

Hi Again,


jluetjen

"Fairness would dictate that you apply the same critisisms (sp?) to the other side of the argument. I don't see them supported by any better proofs."

Am I to assume you mean that application of these criticisms and logic to evolution (rather than to just religion)?

Short answer is yes, long answer is this is part of what the scientific method upholds. This is how science works we do not take others words and act as though they are gospel, we want proof. "better proofs" can be offered, however they will be in the form of white papers from various journals.
second point you make about love well the answer is already in your post and from a logical and evloutionary stand point Love is a tool to help in species propagation.



Trekker

"ARRIVING AT TRUTH THE SCIENTIFIC WAY

1. Observe what happens.

2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.

3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.

4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true."


DO you know what the scientific method is or how it works? below is a better description of how it works;

• Define the question
• Gather information and resources
• Form hypothesis
• Perform experiment and collect data
• Analyze data
• Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses


"I've told you so many times... Man does not have the ability to rule himself sucessfully. Why do you think he has a grasp on the other things?"

Again please point out to me how your religion has done such a great job so far in "ruling" us humans?
Are you refering to he as in humans? No one said science is a panacea and knows all, however, what does religion bring? do you take medicine? use a phone? use a computer? science was what made this possible not some church group.

Total chaos all around and I'm hearing, "he knows things". Wrong!!

The majority of chaos I see has been passed down by religion, I have yet to see a group of scientists going on a Jihad, or becoming a suicide bombers....

I never said the religions of the world are providing an example or living by the guidlines found in the bible.

I said "man will never rule himself". This includes religions.

As far as who delivers the bomb or who makes the bomb on a suicide bombers vest... It's all a product of imperfect man and his struggle to produce a government that can solve his problems.

People of earth have become so desperate that many of them will kill other people in an attempt to maintain the direction they think there government is going. They put faith in the leaders. Imperfect leaders, who die...And offer nothing to you, but death.

They either actively fight or support the fight in one way or another. The vast mojority of humans believe that cannot go it alone.


KT

KT wrote:
I've told you so many times... Man does not have the ability to rule himself sucessfully. Why do you think he has a grasp on the other things?

Total chaos all around and I'm hearing, "he knows things". Wrong!!


What bizarre kind of logic is this? TOTAL chaos? Again, this is just emotional hyperbole. The vast majority of humans are born, mate, raise families, all successfully. Very few are involved in war or genocide. That is what makes it news! The world has always had these prophets of doom. And guess what, it has never happened. Amazing, just amazing! Here we are doing all kinds of things the religious nuts are telling are wrong and we are doing such a bad job at ruling ourselves, that it is self-evident to them at least, that god or the bogey-man, etc., will have to step in. Well…… were waiting. Bring it on! What we haven’t waited long enough? You mean, WW I, WW II, Uncle Ho, Stalin, Hitler, and on and on back as far as we can see (10,000 years of recorded human history). All of this wasn’t enough? Jeez, talk about having a non-event as the bases of your argument. What evidence can you bring that this is true? That this will happen? That this is any more than a fairy tale? Because it’s in the bible? Please refer back to the scientific process.
Many of you will not like my tone. You feel I should be more respectful of others beliefs or faith. Why? I do this to children who have not yet developed the emotional control that they should have when they are adults. Why do you still need this type of coddling?
You cannot have both ways. When you try using logic and science you utterly fail, yet when logic and science are used to show you the emptiness of your emotional diatribes, you shout about “lack of respect” and “bashing”. I do not suffer fools gladly. I for one am totally against using any religious beliefs as a foundation to public policy, ever. You may believe whatever you want. But do not expect me or anyone to bend to your will. Stop whining about it. Stop trying to change public education to your particular religious belief. (You complain quite vocally when other religions try to do the same, like the Muslims in there on countries). Stop trying to promote your bigotry against minorities of all types. You may live your life as you see fit. This right extends to the rest of us. I will write, publish, film, act, say and do as my intellect moves me to. I will not censor my words, deeds or thoughts to appease some followers of myths and fairytales.
I freely admit that I, nor science, have all the answers. That is why we keep questioning and searching for them. I, for one, do not have the emotional need to have someone or something provide the answers to me. I enjoy looking and searching for the answers myself. I question everything. I want to understand, to the best of my abilities, how everything works. I read everything I can get my hands on. I compare and contrast different viewpoints and versions of everything. I take very little on faith. I am always willing to change the current working version, when repeatable evidence is presented.

Why would science spend time in space when much bigger problems exist just off the launch pad?

It's all about governments that cannot fix the problem.
It works like this...God's kingdom will replace all the governments of this world.
You don't get to choose this or vote on it...No debate will be heard.
Done deal. Man has had his chance. He can't rule himself.

What's make you think man can climb out of this hole?

The evolution topic is just a smoke screen.
Let's get to the heart of the matter.


KT

Ahh my good Sir RPKESQ,

The truth is so simple. It's for ALL people.

Everyone gets to make the choice.

a. man's governments and endless searching or b. God's Kingdom.

I've made my choice. You don't have to like it.


KT

When Noah and his family were on the ark, I'm sure the people outside with the water rising didn't like that much either.


KT

There was no "Ark" and no rising water. I'm sure you meant this figuratively, though.

Mike

Trekkor,

"Why would science spend time in space when much bigger problems exist just off the launch pad?"

WE do, you just do not see it...

"It works like this...God's kingdom will replace all the governments of this world.
You don't get to choose this or vote on it...No debate will be heard.
Done deal. Man has had his chance. He can't rule himself."

Red Herring, fallicious argument, when is this change supposed to happen? How do you know this is going to happen and how do you know that it will be your god? and not one of the many others that humans have made up?

"What's make you think man can climb out of this hole?"

What Hole? what are you talking about? the only hole I see is the one your digging for yourself.


"The truth is so simple. It's for ALL people.

Everyone gets to make the choice.

a. man's governments and endless searching or b. God's Kingdom.

I've made my choice. You don't have to like it."


Quite simply no it is not for all people, Which "god's kingdom" do you speak of?
as for your decision, I do not care if you worship a moldy twinky, just do not tell me you have all of the answers. and please stop putting them on me and the governments of this world then blame the problems you have created on mans imperfection, sin, or whatever...

Really Trekkor!
Is that all you can do is spout this dribble? So, again, no point by point response, just more platitudes. Now you think we should limit our space programs, because we still have problems on earth. But you said we would never be able to solve our problems because "man cannot rule himself". So why should we stop space research? How would that make a difference? Do you have any ability to construct a logical response at all? Are you even trying? Have you ever tried?

The hole that man cannot dig out of that I speak of?

The basic needs of humankind are not being met.
Crime, violence and greed are rampant.
Conduct is not based on morals...( it's, "will I get caught" ? )
Wars

I'm not suggesting what the governments do with their time or money.
My comment about problems near the lauch pad shows that the public who are homeless or sick ( physically or mentally ) are left to fend for themselves while the "super-rich, smarties" do space shots.
Their life of trusting the leaders must be a real disappointment.

Rockets are sorta cool. I just don't see them fixing anything.


KT

Oh, and the envioronment... Look what man can do.

He is threatening all life in his only home and you want me to bow down to science?

KT

There is definitely an argument to be made that there are better things to spend taxpayer's money on than the space program, but do you 1. understand how little of the government's budget is actually spent on space-related programs and 2. understand how many benefits have come out these programs? It's not a total loss.

"Super-rich smarties doing space shots". I worked on the space program from 1989 until about 2000 or so - it really wasn't like that. :>) You make it sound like a drinking game.

Mike

I would put more faith in science doing something about the environment than religion. I mean, Lake Erie doesn't catch on fire anymore. I don't think that was the result of prayer.

Mike