philh

Jesus was asked whther the old law is still valid and he said yes. So all the hateful bullshit in the OT like murdering homsexuals, sabbath breakers, disobedient children, blashpemers, witches etc still stands if you believe in the bible. Thankfullyt most people have a strong enough sense of morality to ignore its stupid teachings.

Kelpdiver, Im afraid your take on the situation is not in line with the facts. Many of the Al Queada leaders were wealthy Saudis who gave up their high material lifestyle to go live in caves fighting for their religious ideals. Bin Laden himself is a perfect example. This is consitent with religion being the cause of the problem not personal greed. If people would use reason rather than religion in their thinking there would be at least one less motive to fight wars. Perhaps the soldiers would be a bit more reluctant to fight in them.

If greed and lust was such a strong moive in todays troubles. how do you explain the phenemenon of suicide bombers? I think you weould find their motivation difficult to explain without religion. the idea that religions try and seek truth is quite frankly laughable. Religions seeik to install dogma, that usually have no bearing on the truth. if they were interested in truth they would be doing what science does, continually testing and refining their body of knowledge against data. Ive not ehard of a religion doing that.

I think if there were no religion there would probably still be problems, crime, war even. However religion is a big part of our current problems. if you want to recruit people to kill and be killed you are more likely to be able to do it if you tell them that they have a guaranteed place in an after life if they do your dastardly deed. If someone believes in god then they are likely to do as god tells them. The story of Abraham killing his own son to be obedient to god has a very clear message to the faithful do anything, no matter hwo cruel it seems, if god orders it. When people are brought up with such an attitude is it any wonder they commit attrocities? All someone has to do is believe that nuts like Osama Bin Laden speak for god and they will go off and kill overiding there normal qualms. I read a book recently about a Mormon fundamentalist who killed an innocent women and her child because he believed the orders came from god. When you have such a belief you dont question. Bringing people up to question and not automatically follow the orders of an invisible being will not end hate and war but it may well reduce it. Also I was in the museum of medieval torture in Prague. Who carried out such ghastly crimes against innocent poeple? Christaisn who belived the poeple were destined for eternal torture anyway. When you have such a belief its understandable why one might not object to finite torture. Its the belief thats the problem. Religious war: A fight between two armies as o who has the best imaginary friend.

Crowley, I wasnt reffering to you as a representative of the ID clan or equal timers, sorry if that was misleading. Some examples of speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html On the same web site you will see a very interesting section which provides 29 falsifiable seperate pieces of evidence for evolution ranging from a variety of dirrent field of study. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ The concept of falsification is key for any science. If we cannot test a theory or potentially falsify it, it is not going to be accepted into the scientific mainstream. So anyone who believes ID is science: please tell us a way to test it and potentially falsify it, otherwise shut up.

Newtonian physics is certainly not all wrong. It is exactly right for all purposes on a scale most people will ever deal with. Relativity modifed newtons theories for large scales and high speeds. The fact we sent men to the moon using only the principles of newtonian physics backs this assertion. Knowledge comes though testing theories with data. This has been done overwhelmingly with evolution. When the ID people come up with a way of potentially falsifying their theory then it can approach science, until then they should not pretend to be doing science otherwise they will be justifiably laughed at. Id should be taught in schools in my opinion but in a religious education class where it belongs not in science class. Should flat Earth theory be taught in science as well? How about if a chapter on sceintific views on origins be inserted into every bible, would that make you "equal timers" happy? There is no distinction made in biology between macro evolution andf micro evolution. However there is something akin to this: it is is called speciacation. This is the creation of new species. This is defined in the biological literature as a process whereby two fertile partners cannot mate and produce fertile offspring. For example two humans maybe be genetically different, for example in their skin colour but they are the same species because they are able to produce fertile offspring. But humans and chimps despite having 98% identical DNA are not the same species as they would not be able to mate and produce fertile offspring. the process of gentic change to the point where speciacations occurs has been observed many times. So in that sense evolution (even macro evolution if you want to think of it that way) is a fact. What is a theory is Darwinian natural selection to explain the fact that evolutionary change occurs. perhaps everyone that touts the "evolution is a theory" comment should understand this difference.

When we jump out of plane we fall. One explanation is that the mass of the planet creates a curve in the fabric of space/time larger than the one my body creates and so I fall along the path created by gravity. Another explantion is that there is an air spirit called Bob. The air spirit picks each skydivier and throws them to the ground. Some people feel a deep connection with Bob they feel his presence, they build great machines to summon him. They have faith that Bob exists, but it isnt blind faith becuase they have felt the living Bob. No one can prove that Bob does not exist. Now i hope you will all agree the latter explantion is not very believable. The reaosn is because we have to assume an invisible spirit when we have a perferctly reasonable explantion in the form of gravity. The same is true with god. It is much more reasonable to follow natural explantions like hallucination or perhaps mild pyschosis to explain revelations than to assume it was Bob, god , Santa, Jesus or Yoda. Well maybe not Yoda. Ancient men did not understand gravity, hence the belief in river sprites, they did not understand lightning hence the belief in sky gods ( Thor, jehovah etc not Olav, Airspeed etc). One can understand their mistaken beliefs . Unfortunately these mistakes have been bred into our culture and it is up to us to realise oops our ancestors made a mistake.

I read Lee Sobel Case for FAith and thought it was pile of crap with some of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard. He justifies the mass slaughter of civilians by saying they werent christians and so were going to hell anyway! His explanation for suffering is equally pathetic. He gives the example of a bear in the woods who is ill and is given an injection to improve his position. The bear we are told will only percieve the injection as suffering and doesnt realise its for his own good. So the analagy implies that we are the bear suffering for some higher good we are not aware of. This defense is so lame I dont know where to start. First off, if we used a painful injection when we know and have easy access to a less painful one then clearly we are committing cruelty. This is obviously the case in the bible, think of the great flood myth, these people would have died a horrible death. An all powerful god could have given them a painless death but he didnt, cruel son of a bitch. Secondly Sobel just assumes god is good and assumes he has some higher cause but why not assume god is an asshole and amuses himslef with human suffering, why is that any less valid? The bottom line is that there is no evidence for gods existence. Without evidence why should we believe? Believing stuff without evidence is the begining of a very slippery slope which leads to the killing of the unbelivers. But let assume the bible is true; well then god is a cruel wanker and I still wouldnt worship him anyway. Id sooner side with the devil who rebelled against a god that orders genocide, torture and targets children for his vengeance. Fuck god up the ass - thats what I say.

and what reason is that?

The fact that we have evolved the ability to cooperate does not necessarily mean we always cooperate. My point is that cooperation is entirely consistent and not in contradiction with evolution. Of course wars occur. But i would allege that there are more people not in violent conflict with one another then there are people who are in violent conflict. I would still like to hear why you believe the bible which endorses wars of genocide amongst other hateful philosphies should have moral relevance today?

I dont think you are quite accurate in respect to cooperation and evolution. It is well understood that we have evolved either through genetic evolution or cultural evolution the ability to cooperate. Cooperation is widespread throughoutt species and there are even examples of inter species cooperation. Recently I was in Norway where interspecies cooperation had been observed to prevent Orca predation. In terms of evolution those that use conflict to resolve issues are less likely to have their genes passed on than those that use cooperation. For a more detailed discussion of this , but still appropriate for the laymen see "The Origins of Virtue"by Matt Ridley. What is clear is that virtue predates the bible. Furthermore morality itself evolves and the morality of the bible is certainly out of date as it condones genocide, torture, slavery, sexism etc.

Im glad you accept that the bible is not fact and not scientifically accurate. So lets talk about fair then , when jesus said "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." was he really being fair? Hes basically encouraging the burning of those that dont follow Christianity. This passage was used to justify the burning of thousands perhaps millions of people. If Jesus was divine then he would be able to see the future and know this would happen - if he wasnt then hes just anothr despot trying to do away with his rivals. either way, whether you take this passage (and there are so many more) literrally or figuratively its hard to see how the bible is anything other than a philosophy of fascism and obedience, fair is not exactly a word I would use to describe it.

The fact that the bible gets it science wrong means its legitmacy as a source of so called "divine knowledge" is shown to be bullshit. So any moral philosophy has no more legitmacy than any other book. and its morality? hell thats even worse than its science: it wants homosexuals, saabbath breakers and non believers executed. It condones genocide It has prohobitions against ridiculous thigs like making a graven image, but has nothing to say about slavery. but at least the Old Testament only calls on death for non followers, the New Testament want its opponents tortured for all eternity - what a fantastic morality!

But both science and religion claim to give an account fo creation, they are not different questions. If the biblical account of creation is wrong - and science most clearly states that it is. then the legitamcy of the bible falls apart.

Bruno discussed a cosmology that was more in sync with modern sicence and what happened to him? He was executed by the church for heresy , anyone who says there is no confict between sceicne and religion does a disservice to his and other "herectics" memory.Of course there is a conflict becuase the bible and other religious texts give an account of creation and other elements of our history that is at odds with the scientific evidence. For example, the bible says the stars were created after the Earth but science says the oldest stars are several times older than Earth. Now its simple: either science is right or the bible is right, they cant both be right if the say opposite things. hence there is a conflict. Incidentally most secularists do not object to religion being taught in school, what we object to is religion being taught as science. In my school we had a class called religious education where we given an objective educaiton on various different religions and their beliefs. Such beliefs had no place in biology classes, and rightly so.

Quote Science and religion are only at odds with each other when fanatics at either end of the spectrum overstep the boundaries that are well understood by most people. Science does not tell people how to live spiritually, and religion does not try to solve the mysteries of the physical world. The Vatican does not deny that Evolution is a fact, and Science does not try to disprove the existence of anyone's chosen diety. ------------------------------------- I dont agree at all. For example in Genesis the bible tells us that the sun, tthe stars and the moon were created after the creation of day and night, after the creation of water, after the creation of plants. Science says the sun and the stars existed before the Earth. One does not have to be a fanatic to say the two are contradictory only one is right. Religious texts need to give us a reason to worship their gods. The reason is generaly given is that their god is the creator and so they give an account of creation. If that account is shown to be false - and it is - then their texts lose credibility. Faith is belief without evidence. I see nothing more illogical to believe something without evidence.

The standard definition of faith is belief without evidence. As far as a canopy goes. Well, there is evdience on two fronts. One the prinicples of the parachute are consistent with known laws of nature ie it should work. Second, the chances of a parachute not working are slim ie there is emperical evidence that it does work. without this I know I would not jump. Anyone that believes in the definition of faith outlined above I invite them to jump without a rig and see if jesus was right when he said anything is possible for those that have faith in him.

Never said they don't have the right. But it's a quaint little statement that everyone has equal rights - no shit. All I say is the -blatant-in-your-face-political-commentary - detracts from otherwise good work when these guys do that (all the time). It either means they are "impassioned" to do it - childish. Have an axe to grind - petty. Or that they think their audience is too stupid and needs education on 'their' points of view - arrogant. Pick one. I'm giving them credit for good intentions by picking childish - although I really do think it arrogance most often than not. I'd rather they lay out an interesting story and let us think for ourselves. Current movie story lines lack subtlety - it's an indication that entertainment holds the general person in very low esteem. That's means you and me and everyone else. Not just "those OTHER guys" - everyone. Quote Part of the theme of the movie is the way in which dictatorshiop emerges from democracy. Someone that values liberty and wants to highlight the dangers of playing to peoples fears to take away their liberty is not being petty or childish. Nor are they telling you what to think. They are presenting a moral fable in the same way that stories throughout history have done. This includes the original trilogy. Whether you agree with the moral of the story is your business. But I see no reason why an artist is being childish or petty for putting the moral in. i think this is especially true when its made in a country which was taken to war recently for reason which were a complete lie.Why shouldnt artists redress the blanace from the lies coming from politicians. Ive often found the best sceince fiction is one that makes us look at ourselvees in a questioning way. 1984 was written as a condemnation of the move to a command economy in 1948, its rightly regarded as a classic despite its lack of subtletly. Was geroge Orwell being childish to worry about such things and create a powerful piece of art in the process?

A religious war is a war fought between two armies as to who has the best imaginary friend.

Sceince is not a faith based belief system. No one ever got a phd becuase they said in ther viva that they had faith in their thesis. No scientific paper was ever published because the author or editor had faith that it was true, Phds are awarded, papers published because there is evdidence to support someone thesis. In the case of string theory your example proves that rigour of science. String theory has very elegant logic and maths behind it. But as yet there is no experminetal verfiication of string theory and so it is not accepted as anyhting other than a possible , but not yet firm, description of nature. Scientists are searching for ways to test their theories. You do not fidn the same critical thinking in religion and that is why it is a sham.

why is it childish for an artist to include political commentary in their work? They have as much right to express their views in their works as politicains do in their sppeeches.

But if the account of creation in the bible is shown to incorrect - and it is - then why should we consider it to be anyhting other than the myths of ancient men?

The teachings of Christ are the problem. For example in John 15,6 Jesus says that non believers shall be cast in the fire and burnt like sitcks. is it any wonder then that Christians through the ages have used violence in the name of Jesus? Such a quote was used to justify the burning of countless opponents of the church. If jesus could see the future and condemmed such acitivity then perhaps he could have made a law saying though shalt not kill in my name. Instead he encouraged the opposite. His teachings are the problem, not just his intolerant followers.

Skyventure Arizona was rumoured to be opening at Xmas now its May and they still dont even have an opening date yet. That doesnt bode well for a Summer opening for Skyventure UK.

The question is not "is it compatible with evolution" the question is, is there evidence to support such a proposition. In case of ID the answer is a clear no.