Understanding Christianity

[OnePercenter]

How does the study of godlore further ones perception of the beyond?

How does a study of a map, or the study of history, assist travel and future decision-making? When people limit themselves to their own personal experiences, they become like a pond that has no water flowing in and no water flowing out. The pond stagnates.

Now you're attempting to lump vacation plans with the mythology of religion. Keep spinning!

 

[OnePercenter]

Which is why I believe in God and not religion. Religion propagates godlore for economic reasons.

My experience with community worship and outreach does not fall under that broad brush.

Except it's a $68B per year bilk where organizations and some people get VERY RICH.

 

[OnePercenter]

If folks would live by reason over faith they'd be living better in every respect.

People need to put on their big-boy-pants and not approach religion with their eyes wide shut. If people need religion to feel comfort, they need to find whats missing in their life, put on their big-boy-pants, and fix the problem.

People need religion to feel comfort? Says who? My faith tells me to pick up my cross daily, so don't talk to Christians about "big boy pants."

Religion is a philosophy, a code people choose to live by, especially during tough times.

Doesn't rational philosophy null religion as a philosophy?

'Rationalism' is merely a cult itself, and 'rationalists' mostly fail at being rational, as we see in threads like these, just for starters.

Bullshit! Rationalism is; opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

 

[MarkDuffy]

There are three groups of people concerning evolution.

1. Those that do not believe in evolution.
2. Those that believe in evolution.
3. Those that believe evolution answers the questions to everything.

Groups 1 and 2 I understand and respect. Group 3, some of what we have in this thread, are pure looney and delusional.

1) Those that believe in evolution
2) Those who pick and choose their evolution. Sane believers.
3) Total idiots

 

[MarkDuffy]

There are three groups of people concerning evolution.

1. Those that do not believe in evolution.
2. Those that believe in evolution.
3. Those that believe evolution answers the questions to everything.

Groups 1 and 2 I understand and respect. Group 3, some of what we have in this thread, are pure looney and delusional.

It would be impossible to not believe evolution exists if you are even marginally informed. Impossible.
My opinion has always been why does evolution and creationism have to be antithetical?
Why would evolution not be a part of creationism?
Usually the creationist only belief is based on the notion of an omnipotent, absolute supremacy deity. A God that has never, or will ever make mistakes. If they believe that, they must not have ever read the bible.

Believers who have to deny science have very little faith in their God.

If God ever comes back, the first thing he will say ~ "Whoa Hoss! I said WHAT?"

 

[MarkDuffy]

There are three groups of people concerning evolution.

1. Those that do not believe in evolution.
2. Those that believe in evolution.
3. Those that believe evolution answers the questions to everything.

Groups 1 and 2 I understand and respect. Group 3, some of what we have in this thread, are pure looney and delusional.

Please, elaborate. Provide some examples.

There are people who say altruism is caused by evolution.

They also say selfishness is caused by evolution.

What, did evolution get confused?

Typical low mentality binary thinking

 

[Weatherman2020]

Which is why I believe in God and not religion. Religion propagates godlore for economic reasons.

My experience with community worship and outreach does not fall under that broad brush.

Except it's a $68B per year bilk where organizations and some people get VERY RICH.

What other lies do you cling to to justify you not helping those in need with your own time and money?

 

[Weatherman2020]

There are three groups of people concerning evolution.

1. Those that do not believe in evolution.
2. Those that believe in evolution.
3. Those that believe evolution answers the questions to everything.

Groups 1 and 2 I understand and respect. Group 3, some of what we have in this thread, are pure looney and delusional.

Please, elaborate. Provide some examples.

There are people who say altruism is caused by evolution.

They also say selfishness is caused by evolution.

What, did evolution get confused?

Typical low mentality binary thinking

Says the closed minded I will yell at anyone who threatens my bubble world person.

 

[MarkDuffy]

There are three groups of people concerning evolution.

1. Those that do not believe in evolution.
2. Those that believe in evolution.
3. Those that believe evolution answers the questions to everything.

Groups 1 and 2 I understand and respect. Group 3, some of what we have in this thread, are pure looney and delusional.

It would be impossible to not believe evolution exists if you are even marginally informed. Impossible.
My opinion has always been why does evolution and creationism have to be antithetical?
Why would evolution not be a part of creationism?
Usually the creationist only belief is based on the notion of an omnipotent, absolute supremacy deity. A God that has never, or will ever make mistakes. If they believe that, they must not have ever read the bible.

It is not possible to believe in evolution if you have a basic understanding of microbiology and can think for yourself.

Say what?

Origins and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance

 

[Weatherman2020]

There are three groups of people concerning evolution.

1. Those that do not believe in evolution.
2. Those that believe in evolution.
3. Those that believe evolution answers the questions to everything.

Groups 1 and 2 I understand and respect. Group 3, some of what we have in this thread, are pure looney and delusional.

It would be impossible to not believe evolution exists if you are even marginally informed. Impossible.
My opinion has always been why does evolution and creationism have to be antithetical?
Why would evolution not be a part of creationism?
Usually the creationist only belief is based on the notion of an omnipotent, absolute supremacy deity. A God that has never, or will ever make mistakes. If they believe that, they must not have ever read the bible.

Believers who have to deny science have very little faith in their God.

If God ever comes back, the first thing he will say ~ "Whoa Hoss! I said WHAT?"

The only science deniers are on the left.

Just ask any leftist if Trump aimed hurricane Harvey at minorities and half will say yes.

 

[Weatherman2020]

There are three groups of people concerning evolution.

1. Those that do not believe in evolution.
2. Those that believe in evolution.
3. Those that believe evolution answers the questions to everything.

Groups 1 and 2 I understand and respect. Group 3, some of what we have in this thread, are pure looney and delusional.

It would be impossible to not believe evolution exists if you are even marginally informed. Impossible.
My opinion has always been why does evolution and creationism have to be antithetical?
Why would evolution not be a part of creationism?
Usually the creationist only belief is based on the notion of an omnipotent, absolute supremacy deity. A God that has never, or will ever make mistakes. If they believe that, they must not have ever read the bible.

It is not possible to believe in evolution if you have a basic understanding of microbiology and can think for yourself.

Say what?

Origins and Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance

Call me when your microbe becomes a hamster.

Tell me how DNA replicates.

 

[MarkDuffy]

There are three groups of people concerning evolution.

1. Those that do not believe in evolution.
2. Those that believe in evolution.
3. Those that believe evolution answers the questions to everything.

Groups 1 and 2 I understand and respect. Group 3, some of what we have in this thread, are pure looney and delusional.

It would be impossible to not believe evolution exists if you are even marginally informed. Impossible.
My opinion has always been why does evolution and creationism have to be antithetical?
Why would evolution not be a part of creationism?
Usually the creationist only belief is based on the notion of an omnipotent, absolute supremacy deity. A God that has never, or will ever make mistakes. If they believe that, they must not have ever read the bible.

Care to take a guess as to why the two men who discovered the human genome started their work as atheists and completed their work saying intelligent design did it?

Like I said, when you begin looking at the immense complexity of how life works at the smallest levels, you can have only one honest answer.

and who would these two men be?

 

[Weatherman2020]

There are three groups of people concerning evolution.

1. Those that do not believe in evolution.
2. Those that believe in evolution.
3. Those that believe evolution answers the questions to everything.

Groups 1 and 2 I understand and respect. Group 3, some of what we have in this thread, are pure looney and delusional.

It would be impossible to not believe evolution exists if you are even marginally informed. Impossible.
My opinion has always been why does evolution and creationism have to be antithetical?
Why would evolution not be a part of creationism?
Usually the creationist only belief is based on the notion of an omnipotent, absolute supremacy deity. A God that has never, or will ever make mistakes. If they believe that, they must not have ever read the bible.

Care to take a guess as to why the two men who discovered the human genome started their work as atheists and completed their work saying intelligent design did it?

Like I said, when you begin looking at the immense complexity of how life works at the smallest levels, you can have only one honest answer.

and who would these two men be?

Uninformed people like you are so easily duped.

 

[MarkDuffy]

There are three groups of people concerning evolution.

1. Those that do not believe in evolution.
2. Those that believe in evolution.
3. Those that believe evolution answers the questions to everything.

Groups 1 and 2 I understand and respect. Group 3, some of what we have in this thread, are pure looney and delusional.

It would be impossible to not believe evolution exists if you are even marginally informed. Impossible.
My opinion has always been why does evolution and creationism have to be antithetical?
Why would evolution not be a part of creationism?
Usually the creationist only belief is based on the notion of an omnipotent, absolute supremacy deity. A God that has never, or will ever make mistakes. If they believe that, they must not have ever read the bible.

Care to take a guess as to why the two men who discovered the human genome started their work as atheists and completed their work saying intelligent design did it?

Like I said, when you begin looking at the immense complexity of how life works at the smallest levels, you can have only one honest answer.

"Care to take a guess as to why the two men who discovered the human genome started their work as atheists and completed their work saying intelligent design did it?"


Utterly false. He became religious before he mapped (not discovered) the human genome, as you can read here in his own words:
FINDING MY RELIGION / Leader of the Human Genome Project argues in a new book that science and religion can coexist happily

Methnks he is talking Watson & Crick, but he would be wrong.

 

[OnePercenter]

That's poor reasoning on your part. It does not follow from my comments that i would be ignorant of that idea.

And it has always been silly. The main reason being, one can "reason" anything, and if one starts from bad premises or bad evidence, one can reason amything false or unsupported to be true.

No, it's not poor reasoning. The remark came across as ignorant and vulgar--and the vulgarity only served to emphasize the ignorance.

As we cannot read minds, I always recommend people present their own beliefs and leave it to others to present theirs. Reasoning can--and often does--start with facts and good premises as well. Can it be misused? Sure.

While it was vulgar, it was in no way ignorant. "Reason-based faith" is still faith. And a distinction must be drawn between this and, for instance, using deductive reasoning to make a prediction from a scientifc theory.

Reason needs fact. How can you deduce fact from mythology?

 

[MarkDuffy]

So you are saying that creationism and evolution are antithetical?
I am not saying that there was no intelligent design, what I am saying is why can they not both exist?
Evolution does not have to mean we started in a soupy pond a few million years ago and whalah...here we are. Evolution can mean that a bird, for instance, can change it's biology and physical characteristics over many generations to better suit themselves to a changing environment.

So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

That's why I know.

Why you know what?
This doesn't answer the question...why must evolution and creationism be antithetical?
Why can they not co-exist?
There are many animals of the same species, that have small physical differences that absolutely benefit them to their specific environment. An environment they were not ever a part of in the past. In other words, we can see these changes occur over time.
Creatures do evolve, they change. Homo sapiens have obviously changed.

Poodles, Golden Retrievers, Dachshunds. All shapes, colors, sizes. All dogs with one common ancestor.

and proof of evolution

 

[MarkDuffy]

Poodles, Golden Retrievers, Dachshunds. All shapes, colors, sizes. All dogs with one common ancestor.

Dogs are a very poor example because man has bred these changes recently.
Although, again, not sure what this has to do with the question.

and the breeding was done along evolutionary genetic lines using artificial selection to change population gene pools.

 

[OnePercenter]

While it was vulgar, it was in no way ignorant. "Reason-based faith" is still faith. And a distinction must be drawn between this and, for instance, using deductive reasoning to make a prediction from a scientifc theory.

I've said this often: Religion is not science. Science cannot prove religion. Science cannot disprove religion. Religion belongs in the realm of philosophy, even though there is a lot to be said about exploring the spiritual realm--or that which lies beyond the physical.

If you are one who wishes to remain firmly fixed in physical knowledge and understanding, go for it. There is a lot to learn, and it of great interest. What I don't get are those who proclaim their interest in science and then scorn those who have also have interests outside of science.

Another mystery: Why aren't those who proclaim this great interest in science not spending their time on a science forum? Why do they spend so much time in a forum where they profess no belief and no interest in truly learning about the faith of others?

Religion is mythology. Nobody can prove mythology.

 

[Meriweather]

While I do consider myself a materialist, I have no problem with anyone exploring any philosophical idea. You are free to think your houseplants talk to you, as far as I am concerned. It's only when you try to codify your houseplants' messages (while arguing to the authority of your houseplants) into scientific knowledge, law, or policy that we will butt heads.

This is a completely idiotic response. We are not speaking of houseplants, let alone the idea houseplants can talk.

Second, you could not possibly know that people discussing science here are also not discussing science elsewhere. That's a false dichotomy you just fashioned.

Never said people couldn't do both. I'm speaking of people who spend time in a religion forum. It's a bad habit to recreate a message and then to address a response to your own creation.

Now, if you would modify your comments to simply wonder why they are posting here, I can offer a couple of possible explanations. For one, people with a firm grasp of evidence-based thought are generally perturbed at a perceived, sudden rise in, well, utter bullshit and magical thinking that we have seen in this country. They come here to confront it and let off steam. Second, people like to prepare themselves for when they meet magical thinkers in real life and for when watching them from afar. People like to know what sort of charlatanry and poor arguments and misrepresentation of evidence to expect from the magical thinkers, who are not just mythical creatures hiding in the shadows, but are firmly entrenched in our government, creating laws and policy which affect us all.

Sorry, this explanation doesn't fly. I am from a family of atheists who wonder the same thing when I ask them about this phenomenon. Their guess is that people are so conflicted about their non-belief they cannot help but to keep picking at the scab. Perhaps that conflict is what generates the steam of which you speak. They completely understand why someone like me with faith and strong belief spends time on religion forums. They understand my interest. My brother-in-law had a thought: He said people who do what I describe are merely bullies, and probably frustrated ones at that.

Further, among themselves they realize there is great diversity within the political realm and various laws for society.

Finally, they are mature enough to understand that faith and a belief in God based on experiences and reason is not "magical." Situations and events they have no explanation for they explain by agreeing it is definitely unusual, but not unusual enough for them to attribute to a spiritual being.

I speak to atheists all the time, because I find most of them to be thoughtful, reasonable people. But someone who shifts to talking houseplants? Come on... Unless you up your game, conversing with each other is only waste of time for both of us.

Peace.

 

[HaShev]

While it was vulgar, it was in no way ignorant. "Reason-based faith" is still faith. And a distinction must be drawn between this and, for instance, using deductive reasoning to make a prediction from a scientifc theory.

I've said this often: Religion is not science. Science cannot prove religion. Science cannot disprove religion. Religion belongs in the realm of philosophy, even though there is a lot to be said about exploring the spiritual realm--or that which lies beyond the physical.

If you are one who wishes to remain firmly fixed in physical knowledge and understanding, go for it. There is a lot to learn, and it of great interest. What I don't get are those who proclaim their interest in science and then scorn those who have also have interests outside of science.

Another mystery: Why aren't those who proclaim this great interest in science not spending their time on a science forum? Why do they spend so much time in a forum where they profess no belief and no interest in truly learning about the faith of others?

Religion is mythology. Nobody can prove mythology.

But we can prove The Jesus character is made by plagiarizing past mythologies like the Baal death scene found in ancient tablets now housed in the British Museum, and that's enough to shake them while asking them : "what the hell is wrong with you?" *L*