Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[regular.joe]

you are not asking me to justify my beliefs, understandable now that I know that you don't think I know how to justify my beliefs.

I have not likened quantum mechanics to my soul. I have only stated that there are logical inconsistencies in observations in the field of quantum mechanics. For instance, logical inconsistencies in observation lead us to see things like Bells Theorem as true/provable. Logical inconsistencies in observation lead us to ask questions and dig deeper into non-locality and try to find answers such as hidden variables. Although Bells Theorem seems to point to QM more then hidden variables. I assume you know these things. Your statement that It is no surprise that a more advanced view of what God should be leads to logical inconsistencies, made me think of quantum mechanics.

It is true that I believe that God exists, I base this belief on my experience in life. I don't ask anyone else to believe the same thing that I believe. The lens of my perception is indeed colored by this. I think I've made that abundantly clear up until now in our discussion. The lens of perception is also colored with my atheist friends. I personally believe that you don't like what I have to say here in this forum, and are trying to attack the form of my rhetoric, saying it is "poorly crafted". Yes it's true, I admit it, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. I have not been defensive, and I have not said anywhere in our discussion that what I say is not open to exploration or discussion. I have not likened my soul to quantum mechanics anywhere in our discussion. If you continue to make statements that are simply not true about our discussion I will assume that you have some other agenda in mind then honest discussion. As far as I'm concerned it will call into serious question your integrity.

[Pico and ME]

I would be interested in hearing about those experiences in your life that contributed to your belief in God. I have my own theory about how this usually starts with people and tried to express it in another discussion, but was accused of attacking someones 'faith' when you got into the discussion. All you had to do was say that your life experiences led you to your faith and then the discussion was over. It shouldn't be that way, otherwise I could say something like 'my experiences have led me to believing that we really didn't land on the moon' and that would be that.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

snip~ All you had to do was say that your life experiences led you to your faith and then the discussion was over. It shouldn't be that way, otherwise I could say something like 'my experiences have led me to believing that we really didn't land on the moon' and that would be that.

Yes, that would be that, unless one (or both) of the parties is trying to convince the other they are wrong, rather than just learning why they feel the way they do.

[tw]

The Pope is infallible? Not according to actions of the current 'infallible' pope. From the NY Times of 24 Jan 2009:

Pope Reinstates Four Excommunicated Bishops
The four reinstated men are members of the Society of St. Pius X, which was founded by a French archbishop, Marcel Lefebvre, in 1970 as a protest against the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council, also called Vatican II. Archbishop Lefebvre made the men bishops in unsanctioned consecrations in Switzerland in 1988, prompting the immediate excommunication of all five by Pope John Paul II.

Later that year, Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, sought to regularize the church’s relationship with the society. And as pope, he has made reinstating the Lefebvrists an important personal cause.

Appreciate the statements that caused these bishops to be excommunicated by an infallible pope.

Pope Benedict XVI, reaching out to the far-right of the Roman Catholic Church, revoked the excommunications of four schismatic bishops on Saturday, including one whose comments denying the Holocaust have provoked outrage. ...

Among the men reinstated Saturday was Richard Williamson, a British-born cleric who in an interview last week said he did not believe that six million Jews died in the Nazi gas chambers. He has also given interviews saying that the United States government staged the Sept. 11 attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan. ...

Indeed, even though the Society has given no public signs that it would reverse its rejection of Vatican II, one Vatican official, speaking on condition of anonymity on Saturday because talks were continuing, said that the Vatican was willing to discuss making the group a personal prelature. Pope John Paul II did the same with another conservative group, Opus Dei.

In a public statement Saturday, the Vatican said that the pope would reconsider whether to formally affirm the four men as full bishops, but it referred to the men by that title. It said talks would seek to resolve the “open questions” in the church’s relationship with the society.

Either Pope John Paul or Pope Benedict is wrong. One was fallible. Religion's premise (that underpins that entire religion) is really speculation. Religion re-labels as theory what science defines as speculation - also called junk science. Religion's theory is even contradicted by experimental evidence: an infallible pope made a mistake.

There is no 'theory' of creationism. That speculation uses the same reasoning that says a pope is infallible. To have a theory, one must first have sufficient evidence that the theory even exists. Experimental evidence even suggests creationism is false.

Even the concept of a soul is nothing more than wild speculation. No different from the same logic that proved Saddam had WMDs. We feel Saddam had WMDs. Therefore that is a fact? We feel that god created woman from a man's rib. Therefore that is a fact? Hardly. It does not even meet the definition of theory.

The only man and only woman had two sons. So how did they have grandsons. Did Cain or Abel do their mother? Or did they do their unmentioned sisters? Or maybe religious 'facts' and 'theories' are really nothing more than parables or fairy tales?

Religion is full of beliefs that even contradict knowledge and reality – that even justified massacres. This is why religion is only a relationship between one man and his god(s). Nothing more. No wonder the fallible pope is somehow still infallible.

[richlevy]

There are apparently a few prophecies out there that imply that Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) is the next to last pope before the 'final pope'. With this kind of rigid dogmatism mixed with realpolitik, picking up the worst of both worlds, they may be right.

Unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer Holocaust survivors walking around with their numbers still tattooed on their arms to remind us. It's possible that people will forget, especially if the current pope chooses expediency and condones the denial of what happened. Considering the fact that he himself experienced the Holocaust from the other side, you would think he would be able to correct these idiots.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/malachy.asp

[Griff]

Originally Posted by richlevy

There are apparently a few prophecies out there that imply that Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) is the next to last pope before the 'final pope'. With this kind of rigid dogmatism mixed with realpolitik, picking up the worst of both worlds, they may be right.

I've been easing away from the church for some time. For me Benedict is my last Pope. This obscenity just reinforces my decision.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by richlevy

There are apparently a few prophecies out there that imply that Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) is the next to last pope before the 'final pope'.

Wow - just like Doctor Who!

[tw]

As Pico and ME noted:

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

I have my own theory about how this usually starts with people and tried to express it in another discussion, but was accused of attacking someones 'faith' when you got into the discussion.

Another fundamental problem with beliefs based only in speculation: the believer has no reason to justify (be confident in) their belief. A believer must fall back to emotional attachment and outbursts. A resulting emotional suspicion and cynicism redefines those questions, instead, as an attack. Why? Religion should only be a relationship between one and his god(s). Therefore anyone else's questions or doubts are completely irrelevant - harm no one - insult no one.

Does religion also not teach to turn the other cheek? Of course. One secure in his own religion is never threatened or insulted - if religion is really only about that man / god(s) relationship.

Religious beliefs don't meet the definition of 'theory'. Religious rhetoric (ie the pope is infallible or that virgins await martyrs) only meets the definition of wild speculation or junk science. And yet the religious will even violate their sixth commandment to ‘defend’ their religion from threats that only ask damning questions and that threaten no one.

"What is a god?" The question broke down into the inevitable problem - what is a fact and how do we know anything? Why would people confuse a 'theory' called evolution with 'wild speculation' called creationism? Creationism is defined by the same reasoning that also proved "The Force". No wonder religious leaders in the early days of Star Wars called it a pagan religion. “The Force” was a potential religion and therefore a threat. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed so that Luke Skywalker could save the universe.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by tw

Does religion also not teach to turn the other cheek?

Not all religions do, no.

[regular.joe]

What is your theory about how this usually starts with people, what do you mean by this?

[HungLikeJesus]

So, by your description, if we find life on other planets, this proves there is no god?

[classicman]

I think my head just exploded.

[DanaC]

I think somebody just got served :P

[classicman]

Shit Dana - you posted & I came back and reread the last few pages again - : headspinning

[Flint]

I read an interesting statistic in the paper today: If every creationist got shot, point-blank in the ƒucking face, then I would laugh my ass off.