Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll check the symposium Tricky D. Do you have a source for the first first quotes?
Quote:
So you resent that any group of people can influence public policy?
Resent? No, but I find it unfortunate when people can be influenced by their religious beliefs to vote this way or that. There are some religious organizations and churches that are in danger of losing their tax exempt status for endorsing candidates. You should read Kuo's book about how the Republican party has been preying on those beliefs for political gain.
Quote:
If so, then who or whom should influence public policy?
And remember, I'm not going to take you seriously if you insist that your opinion is correct.
We the people, of course. People suffering without health care and mortgaging their homes to pay medical bills and prescriptions rather than health insurance agencies and pharmaceutical companies who contribute heavily to campaign funds, people unable to send their kids to private school so they have sub par educations, people who need jobs instead of companies who need cheaper operating costs who setup plants abroad, and so on.
I can only hope that policy decisions get made after weighing evidence, considering everyone involved and full ramifications of those decisions and not from just religious belief or indebtedness to wealthy campaign contributers.
"...when asking myself what religion is I cannot think of the answer so easily. And even after finding an answer which may satisfy me at this particular moment, I still remain convinced that I can never under any circumstances bring together, even to a slight extent, the thoughts of all those who have given this question serious consideration."
"It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being"
"The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself"
To sum up, he refers to religion in the sense of the feeling or inspiration one must have internally like those who are religious have, but rejects the actual religion itself, the rejection of science for literal interpretation of the bible, and the concept of a personal god. "The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to his lofty educational mission."
Einstein respected the good results from religion while casting aside the detrimental aspects of it.
I enjoy sites like that too, but I want to also have some contextual understanding. On that note (not that I'm accusing you of this), I find it amusing when christians get bent when someone pulls out those "unseemly" bible passages, crying "that's out of context" but will have no problem pulling some tiny, out of context quote by someone like a past President and wave it as proof of their points. In fact, I should know all of those by now since instead of going to even a site like you went to, they generally only go to one or two sites like Answers in Genesis, so it's always the same ones from there being copy/pasted online and in verbal debates. I mean when the debate is over belief over evidence, why would you expect someone on the belief side to do much research for evidence for their point?
I enjoy sites like that too, but I want to also have some contextual understanding. On that note (not that I'm accusing you of this), I find it amusing when christians get bent when someone pulls out those "unseemly" bible passages, crying "that's out of context" but will have no problem pulling some tiny, out of context quote by someone like a past President and wave it as proof of their points. In fact, I should know all of those by now since instead of going to even a site like you went to, they generally only go to one or two sites like Answers in Genesis, so it's always the same ones from there being copy/pasted online and in verbal debates. I mean when the debate is over belief over evidence, why would you expect someone on the belief side to do much research for evidence for their point?
I don't know about you guy's, but I'm truely enjoying this discourse, and I'm learning something to boot. Seriously, no tongue and cheek, no set up, no sarcasm, I'm really enjoying this. I'm reminded of what a jewish friend of mine said; "we get 10 jews in a room to discuss something, and we have ten different opinions, and ultimatley it's the 11th opinion the 10 of us agree on."
The word 'evidence' keeps getting batted around in the context that evolution has all the 'evidence' and biblical creationism doesn't. Well, again, I disagree.
It is my opinion that we all have the same evidence. We all have the same fossils and the like. It's all evidence. It's how you look at that evidence that is different.
Evolutionists look at the evidence and come to one type of conclusion. That same exact evidence is looked at by a biblical creationist who comes to a different conclusion. The difference is the person interpreting the evidence and, more precisely, their presuppositions. What is their starting point to arrive at their conclusion? They both use the same operational science to back up their claims, but why the difference? Because of their basic presuppositions. That's my opinion anyway. That's why the discussion on this topic will go round and round and round.
Also, one other thought occurred to me regarding Christians who accept evolution (theistic evolutionists). Now, let me say first, accepting evolution does not in and of itself affect anyone's salvation. But, IMO, it is an inconsistency. Now, the point ... if you accept evolution and try to fit in it the bible, you're undermining the actual existence of Jesus. Hear me out.
The geneology of Jesus is traced all the way back to Adam. So if Adam was not a real person in a real Garden of Eden, but just an allegory, then the geneology is not real and thus Jesus is not real. Adam is listed as the first human and his lineage is also listed. If you attempt to add evolution and all the millions of years of supposed development to get to the first human, the geneologies in Genesis do not allow for such a time period and are then invalid. If you invalidate the Genesis geneologies, the geneology of Jesus, which relies on the Genesis geneologies, is also invalidated. Invalidate where He came from (the human perspective anyway) and you invalidate Jesus himself. Just some extra thoughts to consider.
It is my opinion that we all have the same evidence. We all have the same fossils and the like. It's all evidence. It's how you look at that evidence that is different.
Evolutionists look at the evidence and come to one type of conclusion. That same exact evidence is looked at by a biblical creationist who comes to a different conclusion. The difference is the person interpreting the evidence and, more precisely, their presuppositions. What is their starting point to arrive at their conclusion? They both use the same operational science to back up their claims, but why the difference? Because of their basic presuppositions. That's my opinion anyway. That's why the discussion on this topic will go round and round and round.
Agreed! For a Christian who believes that the earth is only about 6000 years old, and that God created everything out of nothing, "evidence" of fossils, rocks, etc being "millions of years old" is kinda hard to see as infallible. For example, I believe that when God created earth, rocks, etc, it was a complete product. If a modern-day scientist would have walked up right after God finished creating a mountain, and would have done some digging around and used modern "dating" methods, would the scientist have come to the conclusion that whatever he was testing was only one day old? IMO, he would have said something like "according to my calculations, this rock is 65 million years old."
They both use the same operational science to back up their claims
No. Most creationist arguments I read boil down to "this looks complicated, so it must have been created". Other arguments toss "theory" around in ways that show they either don't know of or are ignoring the scientific definition and use of the term "theory", which clearly would not be using the same operational science. Most of the rest reject the validity of methods for testing the age of anything, which once again would not be using the same operational science.
Quote:
The geneology of Jesus is traced all the way back to Adam. So if Adam was not a real person in a real Garden of Eden, but just an allegory, then the geneology is not real and thus Jesus is not real.
Not exactly. Adam not being real means the geneology is off at the start, but some or most of it could still be correct, including Jesus.
Quote:
If you attempt to add evolution and all the millions of years of supposed development to get to the first human, the geneologies in Genesis do not allow for such a time period and are then invalid.
Well if you take them literally, yes. If you take them as an allegory or the individual parts as metaphors ("creating" Adam being an evolutionary process that took millions of years, Eve from his rib a metaphor for the "X" of his dna, etc). There are some creative people involved in christian apologetics. I'm sure people can come up with better stuff than I can off teh cuff here.
Quote:
For example, I believe that when God created earth, rocks, etc, it was a complete product. If a modern-day scientist would have walked up right after God finished creating a mountain, and would have done some digging around and used modern "dating" methods, would the scientist have come to the conclusion that whatever he was testing was only one day old? IMO, he would have said something like "according to my calculations, this rock is 65 million years old.
See what I mean? With a little imagination you can make it all fit.
See what I mean? With a little imagination you can make it all fit.
I'm sure you got my point, PhillyChief, but for the sake of clarity, what I was trying to bring across is that even if God created the earth in an instant, the natural properties of the earth were complete, as if it had always existed. So if you start with a complete product having the properties of something millions of years old, how is it possible to date it? IMO, evolution and Christianity can't agree, to get back to the original question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I get all my quotes from the Quotationspage at 
Just an observation...
IMO, evolution and Christianity can't agree, to get back to the original question.
