What I love about religious zealots who attempt to discredit evolution

[Manc Man]

Is the implied assumption is that if they can piece together a superficially researched series of cut and pastes, usually from the 60s or earlier, that cast doubts on some peripheral assumption made by some second tier authors or scientists usually back in the '50s then.....


.......it's obvious that everything must have been made by some giant bearded super genie about 4000 years ago!! 


Disprove evolution if you can, it might be wrong. How would I know? I, like everyone else on this board (I suspect), am not an evolutionary biologist.

But then please be consistent and apply the same amount of scientific rigor to proving God exists.

If I am supposed to respect your belief in God based purely upon your personal faith, then you should have a similar respect for my personal faith in evolution.

But wait! That would require religious zealots to respect other peoples belief systems.

And we all know how often that happens.

[T2K]

Agreed.

Religious people base their faith on beliefs, which is fine.  But then they expect non-believers to use facts to confront their beliefs, otherwise it somehow proves their beliefs are correct.

Which brings us to the Giant Spaghetti Monster - bless his noodley appendages.

[Old Mike]

What all religions try to do is answer the question
“Why do we and the universe exist?”
Given the fact that we do, and that all the evidence indicates that the universe started at a particular time, the question is, how did it happen?
The religious person would say that it was caused by God.
The atheist would say that there is a scientific explanation, though we do not know it and though it is presently not even theoretically possible to create something from nothing.
The atheist’s claim seems to a scientifically trained Christian as much a leap of blind faith as the Christian’s belief in God.
So nobody can “prove” that God does or does not exist.
Belief in God is not the same as thinking that everything started 6000 or so years ago.
As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, advanced Pastafarian scientists are now of the opinion that he is actually a macaroni monster with microscopically small holes.

[Manc Man]

on the contrary

What organized religions have historically done is to actively impede people trying to answer the question of who are we and why are we here?

Since the middle ages they have been so confident that they have the answer andd no further research is necessary that they have routinely used torture and death to discourage the more inquisitive types.

Religions don't try to find answers they try to stop people asking questions.

[Old Mike]

Since the middle ages they have been so confident that they have the answer andd no further research is necessary that they have routinely used torture and death to discourage the more inquisitive types.

Yes, of course. In any society those in power try to hang on to it as long as possible, by any means they can get away with.That applies to the Inquisition as much as to the Taliban

[Manc Man]

So the real function of organized religion is not to answer philosophical questions but to facilitate the concentration and subsequent retention of power in the hands of a privileged elite.

That sounds familiar, I think there was another word for that political model back in the 1930s.

[Old Mike]

As soon as there is a structure there is the chance that it will be corrupted.
Unfortunately that has happened often in Christianity. I cannot comment on other religeons.

[God himself]

So nobody can “prove” that God does or does not exist.

The problem with this is that it attempts to suggest both are therefore worthy, when clearly they are not.

You can't  prove I didn't see a flying pink elephant last night. Does that validate my claim to have seen one?

[Old Mike]

The problem with this is that it attempts to suggest both are therefore worthy, when clearly they are not.
You can't  prove I didn't see a flying pink elephant last night. Does that validate my claim to have seen one?

No it does not. It merely states that the mental process behind each belief is essentially the same, but that different people draw different conclusions from the same evidence.

I would not presume to deny your sighting of the pink pachyderm. What were you on at the time?

[God himself]

I would not presume to deny your sighting of the pink pachyderm. What were you on at the time?

Plain tap water, I thought. It was at a wedding, but I suspect this bearded sandal-wearing hippy may have done something to it ...

[Old Mike]

He only does it these days to annoy the Baptists..

[TheWrathOfGrapes]

I would not presume to deny your sighting of the pink pachyderm. What were you on at the time?

Plain tap water, I thought. It was at a wedding, but I suspect this bearded sandal-wearing hippy may have done something to it ...

If I may quote from Kaypo in the other thread:

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God,

Spirit of the hippy - his manufacturing cost must be very low...

Welcome to the Libation Society...

[Old Mike]

He made about 180 gallons ( 819 litres) of excellent wine at Cana.

He was quite a party animal actually:

"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and people say, 'Look at him! He's a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' "

[Kaypo]

He made about 180 gallons ( 819 litres) of excellent wine at Cana.

He was quite a party animal actually:

"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and people say, 'Look at him! He's a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' "

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. Matthew 11:17-19