evolution or religion ?

[Shokushu]

Itachi5001

Shokushu

Itachi5001

YS nash

Ryu Kei Shou Kawazu

ev

yes that seems more logical than faith to me

Actually, science does not disprove religion. The theory of evolution and the big bang theory can be seen as ways that God chose to create the universe. I also dont want to hear the Adam and eve argument where God creates the universe in seven days. That story is fiction, and is used to tell a lesson.

What lesson is that?

The lesson of that story is not my point, but if you still want to know, its telling people not to give into temptation. My point is that evolution does not disprove religion, the writers of Genesis made their own explanation about how the universe was created.

Don't give into temptation because god planned for you to and you're going to anyway.
Uh, not seeing it.

Oh oh, I know what the lesson is! "God will lie to you."
Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Oh, and god will punish you for telling the truth (perhaps only when it exposes his lies,) as he did to the serpent.

In the story they specifically don't know any better. They don't yet know that it is a wrong action to take- they've been intentionally made to not know. This isn't a message of not giving into temptation but that you will be severely punished in life for actions you take without any way of knowing that they are wrong.

But it's bad even when I take it a bit more sincerely- more the way you meant it. Don't give into temptation, because God is always watching you and he'll know what you've done. This lesson makes God into some vindictive tyrant that isn't just waiting for you to make a mistake so that he can punish you for it, but actually setting you up in situations where you cannot choose the righteous path.

[Snake Oil Salesman]

Religion and evolution can exist hand in hand. Believing in one does not negate the validity of the other.

[Shokushu]

Snake Oil Salesman

Religion and evolution can exist hand in hand. Believing in one does not negate the validity of the other.

If you say you do both then I can be justified in saying that you don't do (at least) one of them very well.

[Snake Oil Salesman]

Shokushu

Snake Oil Salesman

Religion and evolution can exist hand in hand. Believing in one does not negate the validity of the other.

If you say you do both then I can be justified in saying that you don't do (at least) one of them very well.

How? It is possible to be religious while accepting of evolution.

[Itachi5001]

Shokushu

Itachi5001

Shokushu

Itachi5001

YS nash

Ryu Kei Shou Kawazu

ev

yes that seems more logical than faith to me

Actually, science does not disprove religion. The theory of evolution and the big bang theory can be seen as ways that God chose to create the universe. I also dont want to hear the Adam and eve argument where God creates the universe in seven days. That story is fiction, and is used to tell a lesson.

What lesson is that?

The lesson of that story is not my point, but if you still want to know, its telling people not to give into temptation. My point is that evolution does not disprove religion, the writers of Genesis made their own explanation about how the universe was created.

Dont give into temptation because god planned for you to and youre going to anyway.
Uh, not seeing it.

Oh oh, I know what the lesson is! God will lie to you.
Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Oh, and god will punish you for telling the truth perhaps only when it exposes his lies,) as he did to the serpent.

In the story they specifically dont know any better. They dont yet know that it is a wrong action to take- theyve been intentionally made to not know. This isnt a message of not giving into temptation but that you will be severely punished in life for actions you take without any way of knowing that they are wrong.

But its bad even when I take it a bit more sincerely- more the way you meant it. Dont give into temptation, because God is always watching you and hell know what youve done. This lesson makes God into some vindictive tyrant that isnt just waiting for you to make a mistake so that he can punish you for it, but actually setting you up in situations where you cannot choose the righteous path.

First of all, you keep changing the subject from my original point. But you do seem bent on talking about the Adam and Eve story, so Ill give you some more opinions.
Now, remember how I said that the Adam and Eve story is just a story? This was not written by God. Remember that. Anyway, I have two theories that I just made up about your lie theory. The first one is that God did not lie to them. Their old lives did end so they did technically die from a certain perspective. The second theory is that God decided to show mercy. Much simpler.
Okay, second of all, God isnt some king sitting on a throne in the sky recording your every word. And He doesnt set up ways for you to mess up as tests or experiments. Neither did He set the universe into motion and think, okay, lets see what happens.
Do you honestly think that we sit around fearing that God is going to damn us down to hell for losing our temper every once and a while? Of course you dont. Youre just putting everything we say into the harshest words you can think of so that we feel hurt and slip up in an argument. So watch what you say and think about why youre being so harsh. Are you picking on us because you think were stupid for being religious or because we are harming you?

[Shokushu]

Snake Oil Salesman

Shokushu

Snake Oil Salesman

Religion and evolution can exist hand in hand. Believing in one does not negate the validity of the other.

If you say you do both then I can be justified in saying that you don't do (at least) one of them very well.

How? It is possible to be religious while accepting of evolution.

Religion and science can both go in the same head, but you've got to be bad at one to maintain the other. I'm not saying you need to be totally extremist about both of them but you're absolutely neglecting one of them if you can't see any incompatibility.

I would guess science since it's harder to understand but if you actually are very science literate it becomes very easy delude yourself about religion. You should see the mess of intellectuals that have convinced themselves nobody literally believes things like Christ's resurrection.

Itachi5001

First of all, you keep changing the subject from my original point.

You keep saying things that are wrong on the internet. I've just gotta correct them!

Quote:

But you do seem bent on talking about the Adam and Eve story, so Ill give you some more opinions.
Now, remember how I said that the Adam and Eve story is just a story? This was not written by God. Remember that. Anyway, I have two theories that I just made up about your lie theory. The first one is that God did not lie to them. Their old lives did end so they did technically die from a certain perspective.

That isn't what death means and you know it. "On the day you eat from that tree your soul shall decay in a most gruesome fashion and all your descendants shall be ever cursed to repeat your vain mistake" is very different from a death sentence. An all knowing celestial father figure would understand the difference and, if concerned with truth telling, say something much more like the one than the other. There's absolutely no excuse for equating those two concepts- the actual result is not clear when it was called death and this is especially important given the childish mental state of the two humans in the tale.

Quote:

The second theory is that God decided to show mercy. Much simpler.

Banishment and the onset of the host of punishments he threw at them don't really seem to fit the mercy angle. In the story God is furious and levies the punishments against them in an almost reckless haste because he's worried they'll eat from another tree and gain eternal life (which he strangely never forbade.)

Quote:

Okay, second of all, God isnt some king sitting on a throne in the sky recording your every word. And He doesnt set up ways for you to mess up as tests or experiments. Neither did He set the universe into motion and think, okay, lets see what happens.

That's the clear message in the Bible, though even if you won't accept that it means as much there can be little doubt that the authors thought it meant that.

Quote:

Do you honestly think that we sit around fearing that God is going to damn us down to hell for losing our temper every once and a while?

A good fraction of the sects of Christianity think God did exactly that. A good portion of those say that Jesus retroactively changed it and liberated the otherwise good folk from hell at that end of his life ordeal and most of the sects that think it was never like that split off after the retroactive change idea was firmly entrenched in the group they split off from.

Quote:

Of course you dont.

There are very much still people that DO think that. Probably less internet literate ones so you aren't likely to see many of them here but they do things like going out and voting sometimes.

Quote:

Youre just putting everything we say into the harshest words you can think of so that we feel hurt and slip up in an argument.

No, I'm presenting the worst things I've heard people tell me that they believe so that you have a chance to show me that you're better than that.
Ok, that's putting it a bit too nicely- instead... I'm saying it so that I can figure out what you actually believe. "I'm Christian" doesn't tell me s**t. The people that originally said all of these things you've called "the harshest words possible" are Christian too and I, quite frankly, don't have any way to tell you apart from them,
until you actually make some statements I can use to narrow it down.

Quote:

So watch what you say and think about why youre being so harsh. Are you picking on us because you think were stupid for being religious or because we are harming you?

No, I'm treating you like an equal human being who can explain themselves and their positions. I genuinely did not know what lesson you thought comes out of that story.

Now once you proposed a lesson that set off my bullshit detector- umm, more nicely, that didn't really make sense to me, so I levied a few complaints about the apparent line of thought behind it so that you could make a case for why the lesson you see in that story is a valid one.

The only real justification I saw in that was (and I'm sure you'll hate my wording but try to bear with it and decide if I got the meaning fairly close,) that you already know what's right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust without the Bible. You use this to automatically exclude most of the terrible implications of the stories in it and instead bend the meanings of words until they form a lesson that you can agree with. The book isn't really a plan for how to be good but just a tool to get you to spend time thinking about it yourself and develop that sense of what good living is.

(I tried to make that sound very fair. If you're more conservative than that I'm sorry to have taken it to the other extreme but as I've said I genuinely can't tell where you fall because your labels are so damn broad.)

The only problem with this is that everybody else does it too, except with wild cultural differences in their prior comprehension of what is good or bad. No, I'm not talking about anything so foreign as Islam. I'm talking about other US Citizens who have practically infantile comprehension of these matters. This isn't to say that they're slower than you, they just didn't grow up with the same exposure to these ideas that are practically background noise to you. It takes centuries to build it all up and then you hardly realize it's there so it should be no wonder that there are places with big gaps in the coverage of these concepts you take for granted.

Chances are you have a lot of gaps yourself, though about the only way you'd admit it were if you were a total hippy but those assholes pollute their message so badly that everyone else is fully justified in ignoring them.

Sounding a little bit less harsh I presume?

[Itachi5001]

Shokushu

Snake Oil Salesman

Shokushu

Snake Oil Salesman

Religion and evolution can exist hand in hand. Believing in one does not negate the validity of the other.

If you say you do both then I can be justified in saying that you dont do at least) one of them very well.

How? It is possible to be religious while accepting of evolution.

Religion and science can both go in the same head, but youve got to be bad at one to maintain the other. Im not saying you need to be totally extremist about both of them but youre absolutely neglecting one of them if you cant see any incompatibility.

I would guess science since its harder to understand but if you actually are very science literate it becomes very easy delude yourself about religion. You should see the mess of intellectuals that have convinced themselves nobody literally believes things like Christs resurrection.

Itachi5001

First of all, you keep changing the subject from my original point.

You keep saying things that are wrong on the internet. Ive just gotta correct them!

Quote:

But you do seem bent on talking about the Adam and Eve story, so Ill give you some more opinions.
Now, remember how I said that the Adam and Eve story is just a story? This was not written by God. Remember that. Anyway, I have two theories that I just made up about your lie theory. The first one is that God did not lie to them. Their old lives did end so they did technically die from a certain perspective.

That isnt what death means and you know it. On the day you eat from that tree your soul shall decay in a most gruesome fashion and all your descendants shall be ever cursed to repeat your vain mistake is very different from a death sentence. An all knowing celestial father figure would understand the difference and, if concerned with truth telling, say something much more like the one than the other. Theres absolutely no excuse for equating those two concepts- the actual result is not clear when it was called death and this is especially important given the childish mental state of the two humans in the tale.

Quote:

The second theory is that God decided to show mercy. Much simpler.

Banishment and the onset of the host of punishments he threw at them dont really seem to fit the mercy angle. In the story God is furious and levies the punishments against them in an almost reckless haste because hes worried theyll eat from another tree and gain eternal life which he strangely never forbade.)

Quote:

Okay, second of all, God isnt some king sitting on a throne in the sky recording your every word. And He doesnt set up ways for you to mess up as tests or experiments. Neither did He set the universe into motion and think, okay, lets see what happens.

Thats the clear message in the Bible, though even if you wont accept that it means as much there can be little doubt that the authors thought it meant that.

Quote:

Do you honestly think that we sit around fearing that God is going to damn us down to hell for losing our temper every once and a while?

A good fraction of the sects of Christianity think God did exactly that. A good portion of those say that Jesus retroactively changed it and liberated the otherwise good folk from hell at that end of his life ordeal and most of the sects that think it was never like that split off after the retroactive change idea was firmly entrenched in the group they split off from.

Quote:

Of course you dont.

There are very much still people that DO think that. Probably less internet literate ones so you arent likely to see many of them here but they do things like going out and voting sometimes.

Quote:

Youre just putting everything we say into the harshest words you can think of so that we feel hurt and slip up in an argument.

No, Im presenting the worst things Ive heard people tell me that they believe so that you have a chance to show me that youre better than that.
Ok, thats putting it a bit too nicely- instead... Im saying it so that I can figure out what you actually believe. Im Christian doesnt tell me s**t. The people that originally said all of these things youve called the harshest words possible are Christian too and I, quite frankly, dont have any way to tell you apart from them,
until you actually make some statements I can use to narrow it down.

Quote:

So watch what you say and think about why youre being so harsh. Are you picking on us because you think were stupid for being religious or because we are harming you?

No, Im treating you like an equal human being who can explain themselves and their positions. I genuinely did not know what lesson you thought comes out of that story.

Now once you proposed a lesson that set off my bullshit detector- umm, more nicely, that didnt really make sense to me, so I levied a few complaints about the apparent line of thought behind it so that you could make a case for why the lesson you see in that story is a valid one.

The only real justification I saw in that was and Im sure youll hate my wording but try to bear with it and decide if I got the meaning fairly close,) that you already know whats right and wrong, good and bad, just and unjust without the Bible. You use this to automatically exclude most of the terrible implications of the stories in it and instead bend the meanings of words until they form a lesson that you can agree with. The book isnt really a plan for how to be good but just a tool to get you to spend time thinking about it yourself and develop that sense of what good living is.

I tried to make that sound very fair. If youre more conservative than that Im sorry to have taken it to the other extreme but as Ive said I genuinely cant tell where you fall because your labels are so damn broad.)

The only problem with this is that everybody else does it too, except with wild cultural differences in their prior comprehension of what is good or bad. No, Im not talking about anything so foreign as Islam. Im talking about other US Citizens who have practically infantile comprehension of these matters. This isnt to say that theyre slower than you, they just didnt grow up with the same exposure to these ideas that are practically background noise to you. It takes centuries to build it all up and then you hardly realize its there so it should be no wonder that there are places with big gaps in the coverage of these concepts you take for granted.

Chances are you have a lot of gaps yourself, though about the only way youd admit it were if you were a total hippy but those assholes pollute their message so badly that everyone else is fully justified in ignoring them.

Sounding a little bit less harsh I presume?

First Id like to say thank you for trying to be less harsh and clarifying yourself more. I just gave it some thought, and Id like to clarify that Im not a creationist. I dont believe the Adam and Eve story Adam is just a Hebrew word for man, by the way) and while Im at it, I dont believe the Jonah and the whale story. Those were pure human minds talking. So feel free to butcher those stories sorry, now its me being harsh).

Im not one who takes every word in the Bible literarily. I take very few things from it as historical facts mainly, because every time the Israelites got hit by a natural disaster, or got conquered by an outside army, they blamed it on God). So there is a lot of stuff thats messed up in the Bible.

I see where youre coming from when you say that there are people who see God as that divine image judging us. If there are people that are afraid of getting sent to hell so they hide in their basement or dont talk to people in case they screw up, then they have the wrong image. Unfortunately, they stand out and people judge our religion by the people who stand out.

Im sorry for the bad and unorganized paragraphs, Im doing this on my iPod, and its pretty annoying.)

[zz1000zz]

I find it worth pointing out Shokushu is completely wrong when he says things like:

Shokushu

If you say you do both then I can be justified in saying that you don't do (at least) one of them very well.

And:

Shokushu

Religion and science can both go in the same head, but you've got to be bad at one to maintain the other.

Anyone with any sort of real understanding of religion would know it doesn't inherently contradict science. Shokushu's comments are stupid in part because there are many religions, a lot of which don't cover any of the same subjects as science. They are also stupid because even religions like Christianity don't have to conflict with science.

There is no basis for what Shokushu is saying. He is just insulting people who don't share his beliefs. It's just close-minded stupidity. That said, it's worth mentioning something else:

Itachi5001

Id like to clarify that Im not a creationist.

While "Creationist" is commonly used to refer to Christian fundamentalists, the truth is creationism covers a broad spectrum of beliefs, most of which do not contradict science in the slightest. There is absolutely no shame in being a creationist. Also:

Itachi5001

I see where youre coming from when you say that there are people who see God as that divine image judging us. If there are people that are afraid of getting sent to hell so they hide in their basement or dont talk to people in case they screw up, then they have the wrong image. Unfortunately, they stand out and people judge our religion by the people who stand out.

There are actually lots of Christians who do not believe in any sort of eternal suffering. Quit ea few theologians have argued there is no biblical basis for that belief. Instead, it became accepted due to a bastardization of Christianity centuries back when people decided to use the Church to control people, and a hell of fire and brimstone was an effective tool.

Of course, people like Shokushu would never bother taking the time to understand serious theological debates. It's far easier to simply quote passages from the King James Bible and mock them, even if that mockery only works when using an inaccurate* translation.

*All translations have inaccuracies, so this isn't just a criticism of the KJV. The KJV is worse than many other translations, but ultimately, any attempt to discuss the meaning of passages should be based upon examination of the text in its original language. That can be impractical at times, but if you're going to criticize something, you ought to take the time to understand it first.

[Itachi5001]

zz1000zz

I find it worth pointing out Shokushu is completely wrong when he says things like:

Shokushu

If you say you do both then I can be justified in saying that you dont do at least) one of them very well.

And:

Shokushu

Religion and science can both go in the same head, but youve got to be bad at one to maintain the other.

Anyone with any sort of real understanding of religion would know it doesnt inherently contradict science. Shokushus comments are stupid in part because there are many religions, a lot of which dont cover any of the same subjects as science. They are also stupid because even religions like Christianity dont have to conflict with science.

There is no basis for what Shokushu is saying. He is just insulting people who dont share his beliefs. Its just close-minded stupidity. That said, its worth mentioning something else:

Itachi5001

Id like to clarify that Im not a creationist.

While Creationist is commonly used to refer to Christian fundamentalists, the truth is creationism covers a broad spectrum of beliefs, most of which do not contradict science in the slightest. There is absolutely no shame in being a creationist. Also:

Itachi5001

I see where youre coming from when you say that there are people who see God as that divine image judging us. If there are people that are afraid of getting sent to hell so they hide in their basement or dont talk to people in case they screw up, then they have the wrong image. Unfortunately, they stand out and people judge our religion by the people who stand out.

There are actually lots of Christians who do not believe in any sort of eternal suffering. Quit ea few theologians have argued there is no biblical basis for that belief. Instead, it became accepted due to a bastardization of Christianity centuries back when people decided to use the Church to control people, and a hell of fire and brimstone was an effective tool.

Of course, people like Shokushu would never bother taking the time to understand serious theological debates. Its far easier to simply quote passages from the King James Bible and mock them, even if that mockery only works when using an inaccurate* translation.

*All translations have inaccuracies, so this isnt just a criticism of the KJV. The KJV is worse than many other translations, but ultimately, any attempt to discuss the meaning of passages should be based upon examination of the text in its original language. That can be impractical at times, but if youre going to criticize something, you ought to take the time to understand it first.

Thank you, your arguments are better than mine or Shokushus combined.

[zz1000zz]

Itachi5001

Thank you, your arguments are better than mine or Shokushus combined.

Thanks, though I didn't really give much in the way of arguments. I made claims, but I figured there wasn't much point in backing them up with any sort of detailed explanation. It seems unlikely someone like Shokushu would care about any explanation I gave, and most who would care probably wouldn't need me to give the explanations.

Incidentally, I noticed something silly Shokushu said, and it happens to be a topic I was discussing elsewhere, so I thought I'd respond to it here too:

Shokushu

Oh oh, I know what the lesson is! "God will lie to you."
Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

First, I want to again point out relying on a literal reading of the KJV is never a good idea if you want to understand what a biblical passage says.

Second, I want to point out taking a literal reading of any English translation of a Hebrew text is fraught with problems, as anyone should be able to imagine. Shokushu claims God is a liar in Genesis because he tells Adam and Eve they will die if they eat fruit from that particular tree. What about this is a lie? Well, Adam and Eve didn't die on the day they ate the fruit.

Only, nobody would expect them to. The Hebrew word "beyom" (meaning when) is used in this passage as an idiom. It does not literally mean God said eating the fruit would instantly kill Adam and Eve. This exact same thing can be seen in 1 Kings, Chapter 2.

So why is God a liar? Because Shokushu is too lazy or apathetic to bother to learn what the passage he is criticizing actually says.

[Shokushu]

Itachi5001

First Id like to say thank you for trying to be less harsh and clarifying yourself more. I just gave it some thought, and Id like to clarify that Im not a creationist. I dont believe the Adam and Eve story Adam is just a Hebrew word for man, by the way) and while Im at it, I dont believe the Jonah and the whale story. Those were pure human minds talking. So feel free to butcher those stories sorry, now its me being harsh).

The other big one that comes to mind is Noah's ark. Your thoughts?

Quote:

Im not one who takes every word in the Bible literarily. I take very few things from it as historical facts mainly, because every time the Israelites got hit by a natural disaster, or got conquered by an outside army, they blamed it on God). So there is a lot of stuff thats messed up in the Bible.

I see where youre coming from when you say that there are people who see God as that divine image judging us. If there are people that are afraid of getting sent to hell so they hide in their basement or dont talk to people in case they screw up, then they have the wrong image.

I don't much like that image either but what's your basis for declaring it "wrong"?

Quote:

Unfortunately, they stand out and people judge our religion by the people who stand out.

While they are a bit over-represented in public spaces you shouldn't underestimate how many people genuinely believe that. I spent years rationalizing them away but they really are out there in almost frightening numbers.

Quote:

Im sorry for the bad and unorganized paragraphs, Im doing this on my iPod, and its pretty annoying.)

This is the Gaia forums we're talking about, I'm just glad you can use punctuation and line breaks!

Itachi5001

zz1000zz

I find it worth pointing out Shokushu is completely wrong when he says things like:

Shokushu

If you say you do both then I can be justified in saying that you dont do at least) one of them very well.

And:

Shokushu

Religion and science can both go in the same head, but youve got to be bad at one to maintain the other.

Anyone with any sort of real understanding of religion would know it doesnt inherently contradict science. Shokushus comments are stupid in part because there are many religions, a lot of which dont cover any of the same subjects as science. They are also stupid because even religions like Christianity dont have to conflict with science.

There is no basis for what Shokushu is saying. He is just insulting people who dont share his beliefs. Its just close-minded stupidity. That said, its worth mentioning something else:

Itachi5001

Id like to clarify that Im not a creationist.

While Creationist is commonly used to refer to Christian fundamentalists, the truth is creationism covers a broad spectrum of beliefs, most of which do not contradict science in the slightest. There is absolutely no shame in being a creationist. Also:

Itachi5001

I see where youre coming from when you say that there are people who see God as that divine image judging us. If there are people that are afraid of getting sent to hell so they hide in their basement or dont talk to people in case they screw up, then they have the wrong image. Unfortunately, they stand out and people judge our religion by the people who stand out. There are actually lots of Christians who do not believe in any sort of eternal suffering. Quit ea few theologians have argued there is no biblical basis for that belief. Instead, it became accepted due to a bastardization of Christianity centuries back when people decided to use the Church to control people, and a hell of fire and brimstone was an effective tool.

Of course, people like Shokushu would never bother taking the time to understand serious theological debates. Its far easier to simply quote passages from the King James Bible and mock them, even if that mockery only works when using an inaccurate* translation.

*All translations have inaccuracies, so this isnt just a criticism of the KJV. The KJV is worse than many other translations, but ultimately, any attempt to discuss the meaning of passages should be based upon examination of the text in its original language. That can be impractical at times, but if youre going to criticize something, you ought to take the time to understand it first.

Odd, his posts don't show up for me. Must be some obnoxious troll that earned a spot on my ignore list.

Nonetheless I'll give a bit of a response: It's true that I have yet to give a reason for the rejection of full science and religion compatibility- I wanted to be certain that the statement was understood before I dove into it.

The most basic conflict in trying to cram religious and scientific thinking into one head is that the very contradictory process of what serves as the first step in answering any question about what 'is.' Science isn't just some large list of near incontrovertible facts- it is a process. To answer a question you find out what you can, pick one or several possible explanations, and then determine ways in which you can test one or more explanations against reality.

Most religious claims cannot be tested and those claims that can be tested will in all cases only remain religious through a rejection of observed reality. Chances are that you don't reject reality to a serious degree but then remains the troubling fact that those things you believe are not things you have any reason to think you know. If you had a reason it would be easily shared through rational means. Religion is nothing like that. With religious belief there's no way for another person to show you that you are wrong, while in science showing others that they are wrong is almost the only thing going on.

-

No, creationism does not mean "an ism about creation." It does specifically refer to a couple of anti science "God did it the way it's written in this story" groups. Much like how Scientology isn't actually related to science or how astrology isn't a study of anything at all, creationism is another case of a word that has a meaning distinct from the Latin word roots that make it up.

If you would like to propose a better word to refer to Christian/Hebrew/Islam/Hindu fundamentalists (just to name the four I've ever personally experienced denying evolution and other scientific facts that conflict with their origin story,) then please do. Until then creationism will remain tainted by those assholes that founded creation science and intelligent design, perhaps specifically because they got shot down so thoroughly in countless courtrooms over the years in their efforts to bypass the separation of church and state.

-

If it's not possible to get a copy without mistakes in translation then how is it valid to complain about me using translations with mistakes in them? I get that I'm talking to an inerrant Bible idiot and all but this really just looks like a lazy catch-all excuse (not to mention all the personal attacks used to pad for a lack of content.)

Quote:

Thank you, your arguments are better than mine or Shokushus combined.

Please don't pad his ego. I get that you like his conclusion but the whole way he goes about getting to it is just fluff (or outright broken logic. I don't think I ever put people on ignore unless they expressly state that they are willfully ignorant of logical fallacies- or in more straightforward terms: that they are happy to lie if it earns them converts.)

[zz1000zz]

Shokushu

Nonetheless I'll give a bit of a response: It's true that I have yet to give a reason for the rejection of full science and religion compatibility- I wanted to be certain that the statement was understood before I dove into it.

The most basic conflict in trying to cram religious and scientific thinking into one head is that the very contradictory process of what serves as the first step in answering any question about what 'is.' Science isn't just some large list of near incontrovertible facts- it is a process. To answer a question you find out what you can, pick one or several possible explanations, and then determine ways in which you can test one or more explanations against reality.

Most religious claims cannot be tested and those claims that can be tested will in all cases only remain religious through a rejection of observed reality. Chances are that you don't reject reality to a serious degree but then remains the troubling fact that those things you believe are not things you have any reason to think you know. If you had a reason it would be easily shared through rational means. Religion is nothing like that. With religious belief there's no way for another person to show you that you are wrong, while in science showing others that they are wrong is almost the only thing going on.

While I won't get into the fact Shokushu is wrong to say science is the first step (first steps are always postulations), I want to point out nothing in these paragraphs actually supports his position. It's a lot of text which says nothing relevant.

Shokushu

No, creationism does not mean "an ism about creation." It does specifically refer to a couple of anti science "God did it the way it's written in this story" groups.

And here he just makes more things up. In fact, what he says creationism doesn't mean is pretty much exactly what it means. The only time one can say "creationism" refers to what he's referring to is if one capitalizes it, giving "Creationism." That is pretty well understood to refer to certain fundamentalist beliefs. Otherwise, it doesn't.

You can find plenty of examples demonstrating this online. One of the most telling examples is TalkOrigins (there are better links for it on that site, but I didn't take long to look for them).

Shokushu

If it's not possible to get a copy without mistakes in translation then how is it valid to complain about me using translations with mistakes in them?

Here he apparently just doesn't read what I said. I specifically said "any attempt to discuss the meaning of passages should be based upon examination of the text in its original language." Given the fact I specifically said one shouldn't base criticisms on any translation, his comment here makes no sense. He doesn't even have the excuse that he has me on his ignore list since he quoted me saying that!

Shokushu

I get that I'm talking to an inerrant Bible idiot

And here he just makes more things up, this time trying to insult me. As I've made clear on this board before, I don't believe* in God. I just believe people should base discussions upon what things actually say.

*Technically, I don't believe in anything.

[Shokushu]

zz1000zz

Shokushu

Nonetheless I'll give a bit of a response: It's true that I have yet to give a reason for the rejection of full science and religion compatibility- I wanted to be certain that the statement was understood before I dove into it.

The most basic conflict in trying to cram religious and scientific thinking into one head is that the very contradictory process of what serves as the first step in answering any question about what 'is.' Science isn't just some large list of near incontrovertible facts- it is a process. To answer a question you find out what you can, pick one or several possible explanations, and then determine ways in which you can test one or more explanations against reality.

Most religious claims cannot be tested and those claims that can be tested will in all cases only remain religious through a rejection of observed reality. Chances are that you don't reject reality to a serious degree but then remains the troubling fact that those things you believe are not things you have any reason to think you know. If you had a reason it would be easily shared through rational means. Religion is nothing like that. With religious belief there's no way for another person to show you that you are wrong, while in science showing others that they are wrong is almost the only thing going on.

While I won't get into the fact Shokushu is wrong to say science is the first step (first steps are always postulations), I want to point out nothing in these paragraphs actually supports his position. It's a lot of text which says nothing relevant.

In regards to what is reality-
Science: Don't make a decision until you know.
*The layman's definition of know.
Religion: Don't ever know. Here's what your decision is.

You don't see a conflict?
Well let's go with a question that's a little more fair for you- what religious (or even just not-scientific,) ways can a person discover that they are wrong about a claim?

Quote:

Shokushu

No, creationism does not mean "an ism about creation." It does specifically refer to a couple of anti science "God did it the way it's written in this story" groups.

And here he just makes more things up. In fact, what he says creationism doesn't mean is pretty much exactly what it means. The only time one can say "creationism" refers to what he's referring to is if one capitalizes it, giving "Creationism." That is pretty well understood to refer to certain fundamentalist beliefs. Otherwise, it doesn't.

Betcha twenty bux that Itachi5001 couldn't have told the difference before you made that up just now.

Still, that seems like a fair way to give you a word you're overly attached to but not veil the nastier subset of people pushing creation. I'm totally going to start asking people if they are talking about creationism with a capital c or not. tyvm

Quote:

You can find plenty of examples demonstrating this online. One of the most telling examples is TalkOrigins (there are better links for it on that site, but I didn't take long to look for them).

Shokushu

If it's not possible to get a copy without mistakes in translation then how is it valid to complain about me using translations with mistakes in them?

Here he apparently just doesn't read what I said. I specifically said "any attempt to discuss the meaning of passages should be based upon examination of the text in its original language." Given the fact I specifically said one shouldn't base criticisms on any translation, his comment here makes no sense. He doesn't even have the excuse that he has me on his ignore list since he quoted me saying that!

You're trying to erect an education barrier to keep people away from this.

Personally I'm fine with going to original language text- the problems are still there and I'm not gullible enough to let you spring word definitions that are clearly out of context. What's odd though is that you're actually too lazy to do this yourself.

Back in my day people would go and post the original passages and point out actual complaints (whippersnapper,) showing the words they thought had different meanings that conveniently sidestepped the issues I raised. Instead you seem to want to just leave the original as some magical untouchable thing where we just stop. There's only the assumption that there isn't anything I could complain about in the original, though I can tell you that's dead wrong. I've got access to enough people that speak Hebrew to know that there's not that much more there.

Quote:

Shokushu

I get that I'm talking to an inerrant Bible idiot

And here he just makes more things up, this time trying to insult me. As I've made clear on this board before, I don't believe* in God. I just believe people should base discussions upon what things actually say.

Fair enough. What does it actually say?

[zz1000zz]

Shokushu

In regards to what is reality-
Science: Don't make a decision until you know.
*The layman's definition of know.
Religion: Don't ever know. Here's what your decision is.

You don't see a conflict?

There is no conflict. There's a difference. Science and religion have two different approaches. The approaches are not compatible. However, if the approaches are used for different things, this incompatibility does not create a conflict. Science does not, and indeed cannot, speak to certain subjects. Given this, there can be no conflict between it and other approaches on those subjects. It is akin to the separation between philosophy and science. You don't try to apply science to philosophical questions, and you don't try to apply philosophy to scientific questions. If you did, there would be a conflict, but as long as you don't, there is none.

Shokushu

Well let's go with a question that's a little more fair for you- what religious (or even just not-scientific,) ways can a person discover that they are wrong about a claim?

How should I know? I don't understand how people can hold faith in anything (including their own existence). Beyond that, why should it matter? Whether or not someone can ever discover their faith is misplaced has no bearing on whether or not they must be bad at science, which is what you claimed.

Shokushu

Quote:

Shokushu

No, creationism does not mean "an ism about creation." It does specifically refer to a couple of anti science "God did it the way it's written in this story" groups.

And here he just makes more things up. In fact, what he says creationism doesn't mean is pretty much exactly what it means. The only time one can say "creationism" refers to what he's referring to is if one capitalizes it, giving "Creationism." That is pretty well understood to refer to certain fundamentalist beliefs. Otherwise, it doesn't.

Betcha twenty bux that Itachi5001 couldn't have told the difference before you made that up just now.

He may not have been able to point out that difference, but I did not just make it up, as you claim. The term "creationism" has been around for centuries, and it wasn't until the 20s it had any association with an anti-science position. In reality, you're the one who made things up about what creationism means.

Shokushu

You're trying to erect an education barrier to keep people away from this.

I am doing nothing of the sort. The internet makes finding the original text for biblical passages easy. It's even fairly easy to find discussions of what that original text means in most cases. I'm not suggesting anyone needs to learn Hebrew. I'm simply saying if you're going to call God a liar, you better make sure you know what God actually said. Given this requires understanding one sentence in Hebrew, it's hardly a barrier.

Shokushu

Personally I'm fine with going to original language text- the problems are still there and I'm not gullible enough to let you spring word definitions that are clearly out of context. What's odd though is that you're actually too lazy to do this yourself.

Back in my day people would go and post the original passages and point out actual complaints (whippersnapper,) showing the words they thought had different meanings that conveniently sidestepped the issues I raised. Instead you seem to want to just leave the original as some magical untouchable thing where we just stop. There's only the assumption that there isn't anything I could complain about in the original, though I can tell you that's dead wrong. I've got access to enough people that speak Hebrew to know that there's not that much more there.

This is complete and utter bull. You just said I'm "too lazy" to do exactly what I already did. Ignoring what I say and hand-waving it all away is completely ridiculous.

How many times are you going to insult me on things which are nothing more than figments of your imagination?

Shokushu

Quote:

Shokushu

I get that I'm talking to an inerrant Bible idiot

And here he just makes more things up, this time trying to insult me. As I've made clear on this board before, I don't believe* in God. I just believe people should base discussions upon what things actually say.

Fair enough. What does it actually say?

I already explained what was wrong with you calling God a liar upthread (and provided a link to the post earlier in this comment). Read that and get back to me.

You might also consider looking into what "death" means in the Bible. It is not always used to mean annihilation or anything like that, just like how in English we have expressions like "dead to me." If one takes the death in that passage to mean a spiritual separation from God (which is how it is translated in Isaiah 59), then there is obviously no problem with the fact Adam and Eve "lived" on after eating the fruit of that tree.

But really, you should have known both of the issues I raised before calling God a liar. There is no excuse for you having called him a liar without being aware of either, especially since any research into the passage would have shown you both (a couple Google searches is all it takes).

[Vryko Lakas]

Let's look at an example of the differences between science and religion about a topic on which they converge (or clash, or bicker, depending on your POV), evolution versus Biblical variants of Creationism. Let's go with Young Earth Creationism (YEC) in this case, one of many segments of the broad spectrum of Creationist beliefs.

Proponents of YEC often try to claim that it is at least as good, even utterly superior, to non-religious science in explaining the world around us; how marvelously diverse life is, how massive features like the Grand Canyon came to be, where humans came from and our place within the world. Many times you will hear them say that scientists and YECs approach the same facts and data with different "starting points," and that's how they reach different conclusions. And yet, we can see that this is clearly not the case if the surface is scratched.

YECs tend to conclude that the Grand Canyon was carved out as a result of Noah's flood, and that the layers of sedimentary rock we see there were also laid down by the same flood. But this presents a stark problem: how did the different layers of rock get deposited in the same event that supposedly cut through them? The rock, which is mostly made up of dried sand and mud that's been compressed and dried out, must have somehow set itself together in a matter of days. To accept this explanation, you have to start ignoring facts that scientists don't ignore. You have to ignore the fact that solidifying rock from sediments releases tremendous amounts of heat. You have to ignore that the layers we see are finely separated and couldn't plausibly have resulted from the same event where sediment sunk down all at once. You have to ignore that sometimes, some of the layers were bent upwards or even folded over themselves before other layers were laid on top, which doesn't happen unless one layer already existed as solid rock exposed to long periods of stress before the next layers were deposited. In very short order, accepting the Flood as the cause of the Grand Canyon's geography requires tossing certain facts out the window, facts that a non-religious and scientific explanation lets you hold on to.

This isn't strictly a problem in geology, either. I've just read an excellent breakdown of why accepting a YEC's religious explanation for certain features of living things requires you to ditch facts, in fact it seems to invite a total abandonment of critical thinking and question-asking as well. When scientists want to know why insects have an exoskeleton made of chitin, they ask questions and look for answers, wherever those answers lead. They find that the history of chitin is long and complex, and that plants don't use the same mechanism to make chitin that insects do. The reasons have to do with how evolution works and how it doesn't. Plants and insects converged on the same product (chitin) but make it through different mechanisms (different genes) because they're not closely related and don't share a common, chitin-making ancestor. Instead they both had to invent their own ways. All of this happened over many millions of years, as evidenced by how vastly different the insect and plant genes are from each other in ways that can't happen overnight.
A YEC stops themselves from asking the same questions and even accepting certain answers because they contradict the belief in a Young Earth and preclude such powerful evolutionary forces. This is even spelled out clearly in a Statement of Faith that one of the largest YEC organizations has its members sign before allowing them to join; they literally do not allow themselves to think about things that could weaken their acceptance of a Young Earth and a literal Creation as spelled out in Genesis. Other organizations like them have a similar statement that prospective members are required to agree with.

YECs are only a small subset of Christians, let alone religious people in general. There are many more religious people who don't believe in a Young Earth and literal Genesis-style Creation. But this raises the question; how do you determine which religious persuasion is correct? It's fairly obvious at this point that YECs have to selectively ignore facts to maintain their beliefs, so clearly the YECs are wrong, right? But all the other religious people have different religiously-held beliefs that will, at some point, require them to selectively ignore facts too in order to maintain their beliefs, or at least require them to believe in something that it is impossible to prove one way or the other. And many of these different beliefs are mutually contradictory; Christians today believe that Jesus is the son of God and one of three aspects of God (the Trinity). Muslims believe that Jesus was not God, but merely one of several human prophets, and that the last true prophet was Muhammad. According to Islam, Muhammad received a corrected and more accurate revelation of the Word of God than that which was preserved by Jews or Christians of his time. This revelation (The Koran) contradicts the Torah and the New Testament in several ways; they can't all three be true and accurate at the same time. How does one go about testing these holy books for superior performance? They often differ on things that aren't supported by science (indeed, which are contradicted by science), requiring us once again to start ignoring facts and cease asking questions in order accept any of them. At that point, when we've stopped considering all the facts, how would you decide which one is best, since you're not using all the facts and not asking some hard questions?