To put it simply, I'm an atheist. Recently I've been wondering more and more about religion and it's relationship with science, specifically biology and astronomy; the latter which I am very interested in. Things that make a human life seem infinitely insignificant astound me to no end. I've had simple religion vs. atheist conversations before, but they didn't really answer many questions. So I figured I'd turn to the forum for some good answers, and maybe provide some answers for questions about atheism if you have some.

The following is a short list of reasons why I don't believe in a God of any sort in a very sober sort of way, just to be warned:
-The main reason is that I'm just not wired to believe, blame it on my upbringing or my sort of logic, but the idea of someone in the sky controlling everything is a bit to far out there. But that's an easy one to answer; lack of faith.
-The amount of knowledge we have is the second. For this thread I'd like to keep the questioning of science to the minimum. Evolution is a validated theory (by scientific definition of theory), but a close look could find some holes. And what we know about astronomy is true. Meaning that we know our cosmic place, the universe is 13.7ish billion years old, and that life could be started without intelligent design. My question is, how does religion cope with evolution, fossils, or how the earth is billions of years old, not thousands?
-The third one, which can describe why religion is, can be explained with the assumption of evolution. For example; let's say that one day a caveman woke up and wondered why. Why does the grass grow? Why does the sun rise, and set? And why am I here and thinking these thoughts? From my point of view, it's much easier for him or her to say something like "God does it" rather than try to understand photosynthesis, the solar system, and a complex brain. Of course this is a long way from the complex religions we have today, but it could explain how they evolved.
-And some other, less relative points

I know that the majority of this forum is religious, and I am not trying to say I'm right, you're wrong. I'm just looking for a logical AND CIVIL rebuttal. It doesn't really matter what religion the answer is from; for this topic, I think that a generalization of monotheism is acceptable.

Also please keep this kind, I would like to just have a conversation on how religions explain the scientific discoveries that can act to denounce religion other than just explicitly saying it's wrong. I would really like to keep other topics out such as the teaching of evolution or creationism in science class, weather or not one religion (or lack there of) is ruining the world, and the cultural impact of beliefs.

I'd also like to say that I realize that I have wrote this in a way that could be taken as offensive. I left all the "but I can see your side of the story" out due to length, and to be honest, that's the part I hope you can fill in. And for those of you still reading, thanks in advance!

Here's to hoping this doesn't end up in the trash can.

Neither science nor religion can answer many of the big questions that we can ask about life, our place the universe ...etc IMO. Time itself is incomprehensible.

I consider myself more an agnostic than athiest or religious, though I respect most other views and love to question all sides.

quote Originally posted by Renegade blob: For this thread I'd like to keep the questioning of science to the minimum.

So, let me see if I have this right.

You want to question how religion copes with science, but you want to keep the questioning of that science out of it? Not possible. If religion can't question the science and show the problems with the science then how can you expect them to justify their beleif? That's kind of like throwing tipless darts at a cork dart board... pointless.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 07-07-2011).]

Religion and/or beliefs is the main reason I consider most humans too stupid to be allowed to live...

Like the xtians who, when presented with fossil evidence, argue "god put it there to trick you"......................frrruuuuccckkkkkk....throw them in a camp and "next".

The word is "delusional"

quote Originally posted by newf: Neither science nor religion can answer many of the big questions that we can ask about life, our place the universe ...etc IMO. Time itself is incomprehensible. I consider myself more an agnostic than athiest or religious, though I respect most other views and love to question all sides.

Yeah me too, I'm on the fence on this one. I think, and I hope to live long enough to see it, Is Jesus or God comming here to ether save us or kill us and like the Goverment theirs not much we can do about it.

quote Originally posted by Kekipi: Yeah me too, I'm on the fence on this one. I think, and I hope to live long enough to see it, Is Jesus or God comming here to ether save us or kill us and like the Goverment theirs not much we can do about it.

After 2,000 years ....either put-up or shut up....I have xtian friends, and grew up catholic, and fully understand respecting other beliefs....but I am willing to bet my life I can walk into the middle of the street, light a smoke, give god and jesus and mary the rant of my life......and the only thing that is going to happen is I get mad at myself for leaving my beer on the porch.

If ANY--ANY--diety--hundreds of them---stretching back tens of thousands of years...was anything besides imaginary friends--dont ya think at least ONE would have more-or-less kept an office on planet earth ??????

Yeh.......

quote Originally posted by Renegade blob: Here's to hoping this doesn't end up in the trash can.

Good luck...

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: The word is "delusional"

Here's hoping the other folks that are "delusional" on here like me don't flame you for your poignant opinion.

quote Originally posted by 1988holleyformula: Here's hoping the other folks that are "delusional" on here like me don't flame you for your poignant opinion.

Simple question.....where is Venus ? (Greek goddes of love)....did the goddess die? did she get forgotten? Was she real? Was she a delusion of the Greek people (worshipped by millions). Did she ever exist, or was she created by a story ?

So if Venus is simply mythology---what difference modern gods ?????

quote Originally posted by Khw: You want to question how religion copes with science, but you want to keep the questioning of that science out of it?

In a way, yes. I guess I thought there might be a side to religion that I haven't seen, if the only answers religious people have is that science (evolution, ext.) is that it is wrong, than I guess that answers all my questions. I was hoping to have an explanation for the discoveries instead of simply saying it's false. But perhaps it is a clear cut as yes and no, right and wrong. This might be much less informative than I had hoped.

The real reason I started wondering this is after seeing an interview with a deeply christian science teacher who teaches evolution and creationism side my side. And giving the students an obvious slant that evolution is dead wrong. I was hoping that this teacher was just really bad at his job, but if that's the real relationship between religion and science than I think my outlook might change a bit. What we know about the universe and ourselves is, for the most part, undeniable in my opinion. And if there are as many devout Christian people out there as I think there are; than I can't imagine what all the kids in my astronomy class last year were thinking when we were learning about the age of the universe and our solar system. Do they really just plug their ears and ignore it? (In a metaphorical sense at least).

If so, then I guess I'll have to edit my main question. Where does religion find the falsities in science? I know for evolution it's always been the "missing link" but that has been found for years, in my opinion at least. How do Christians (and other religions) deny fossil records of dinosaurs, the age of the earth, carbon dating and inconsistencies in religious text.

Sorry if I'm asking a stupid question, but I really would like to know this stuff, preferably without starting any fires...

And as for agnostic views, I'm not really considering those, simply because there's is to many variables, and, like Kekipi says, they're on the fence.

No need to apologize, I was just questioning how someone was to argue something when they are being handicapped from the get go.

I'm not positive on this but I beleive the Pope declared that Evolution was compatible with the Bible at some point, with the exception of the creation of man.

I mean really if you read Genisis God created plants in the waters and on the land. Then came the fish and the birds. From there came the land animals. I may be mistaken but isn't that pretty common ot the order of evolution? Fist there was single cells that formed plants then more complex life forms evolved in the water and continueing on to the land? The Bible says God created, but it does not say what he used to create, correct? Maybe, evolution was the tool he used?

As to time, I guess one could look at various references in the Bible where time doesn't equal time, so to speak. In the Book of Daniel he talks about 70 weeks which many beleive to have a different meaning time wise.

quote Sir Isaac Newton called the seventy weeks the foundation of the Christian religion.[22] The first 69 weeks are interpreted by many futurists to be divided into two units of time: The first unit of time consists of 7 sets of seven years, or 49 years. And the second unit of time consists of 62 sets of seven years, or 434 years.

Now, if 70 weeks could be looked at as 483 or so years who's to say that Gods designation of a Day in Creation is equal to our Day? Maybe 1 Day to God might have been millions of years on Earth? Now, that is just a theory of mine and many have denounced it when I have said it before, but /shrug. God "told" the story of creation to a bunch of Jews. When God spoke to them and said "The first day I did this" is it really so far fetched as to beleive that the Jews used what they new to be a day, which may not have been anywhere close to the period of time God was talking about? If Gods days =/= our days, then who is to say that those fossils are actually fake?

/shrug, I have my beleif, but I don't think I fall in with any mainstream religion. The Bible is the "word" of God written down by men with their understanding of the world, edited and transcribed many many times. If God is a all knowing entity, not bound by the constraints of a Human body or mind, then how can we bind him with our reality? Like I said, I have my beleif, but that's just it, it's mine. It's like the whole Republican vs. Democrat thing. I don't think either one has it all right, I think the answers lie somewhere between the 2 with parts from each. Same with Religion ad Science. I don't think science has all the answers nor does religion, but I think it's somwhere inbetween.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 07-07-2011).]

I think we are really on the cusp of discovering and leaning more about the universe we inhabit. The basic questions that nobody seems to have a solid proof answer to is; Who are we and were did we come from?

Religion seems to try to answer this but they do this by intertwining it to human behavior control. I see religion more in use to subjugate the masses rather than truly seek the answers. They give a simplistic answer "Believe in God", but wrap it is so many rituals, symbols, sacrifices, feasts, and anything else you can think of, cloak it in morality and give it a structured hierarchical organization to dictate to illiterate people and it competes against one another.

Science has brilliant egg heads doing nothing but trying to seek the answers to many unknowns and it uses universal methods and the ultimate universal language (math) that even aliens could relate and understand it. No rituals, no prayers, no people with wings, no books full of parables, just good old fashion hard work, observation, math and brains.

Science has explained so much, religion only provides confusion and adherence to ancient traditions and superstitions. Religion speaks about faith and questions nothing, science speaks about facts and questions everything.

Me? I question everything, so religion doesn't fly with me. I cannot see myself having a full belief and faith in an Apocalyptic traveling rabbi that lived 2000 years ago and say he is God and not believing in this person who people write about years after his death (in many different versions mind you) and told I'll be cast in a pit of fiery hell to be burned for eternity. I'm mean, REALLY?

I don't mind people who do believe in their religion. It's quite innocent for the most part. It's like a child believing in Santa Clause. Be good and you will be rewarded presents. You can look at me with disdain and wag your finger at me telling me that I'm a lost soul and going to hell, but I won't believe you at all.

Religious people will ask me; "What do you think will happen to you when you die?" My response: Lights out, I'm dead.

This is speculation but,the bible says adam and eve were in the garden, the they ate the fruit and humanity started from there(basically)

Who's to say they weren't in the garden for billions of years before they ate the fruit? If so, that would allow the evolution of all the creatures in earth to change onto more "modern" versions of themselves. The dinosaurs could have come and gone in this period.

in response to how religions cope with science

quote Originally posted by Khw: ...Maybe, evolution was the tool he used?... ...The Bible is the "word" of God written down by men with their understanding of the world, edited and transcribed many many times. If God is a all knowing entity, not bound by the constraints of a Human body or mind, then how can we bind him with our reality?...

That actually makes a lot of sense, I've considered the possibility that God made the Big Bang, and helped out along the way (maybe make some life). But the suggestion that God isn't bound by our constraints is something I haven't thought of much. I guess you would fall into the agnostic view, but I really like your points.

I considered myself to be agnostic/atheistic for most of my life, so I have played with the idea that a God figure simply filled in the missing pieces that science can't explain. I'm still somewhat open to the idea that there is some sort of 'higher power', however I personally think that mainstream religion has it all wrong.

quote Consider again that pale blue dot (earth) we’ve been talking about. Imagine that you take a good long look at it. Imagine you’re staring at the dot for any length of time and then try to convince yourself that God created the whole Universe for one of the 10 million or so species of life that inhabit that speck of dust. Now take it a step further: Imagine that everything was made just for a single shade of that species or gender, or ethnic or religious subdivision. We can recognize here a shortcoming in some circumstances serios in our ability to understand the world…

This is taken from the Carl Sagan tribute "The Sagan Series: A Reassuring Fable". When I saw this, I realized that this is a great way to put into words why I feel mainstream religion can't work with modern perspectives and knowledge.

Thanks Khw for the really good feedback.

@wichita: I agree that religion is a simple answer, I see it as something that has had thousands of years to evolve and change. That's how I can see why there have been so many different religions, and why the vast majority have failed throughout time. The ones we have today are only here because they are younger and are good enough the be able to be wide-spread, yet vague enough to stand doubts. Religion to me is just a way to feel good. I'd love an afterlife, and it sucks to think there isn't one.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: I don't mind people who do believe in their religion. It's quite innocent for the most part. It's like a child believing in Santa Clause. Be good and you will be rewarded presents. You can look at me with disdain and wag your finger at me telling me that I'm a lost soul and going to hell, but I won't believe you at all.

I like

First of all, I cannot speak from all religions. I can only speak from my Faith. What Muslims and Hindus and Zoroastrians think about this may not apply.

There's too much here to respond in a single post, and maybe some of my friends will help out. But first of all, this is a straw man argument:

quote Consider again that pale blue dot (earth) we’ve been talking about. Imagine that you take a good long look at it. Imagine you’re staring at the dot for any length of time and then try to convince yourself that God created the whole Universe for one of the 10 million or so species of life that inhabit that speck of dust. Now take it a step further: Imagine that everything was made just for a single shade of that species or gender, or ethnic or religious subdivision. We can recognize here a shortcoming in some circumstances serios in our ability to understand the world… - Sagan

Why would God create the world to be Lord of the cats? I love cats as much as anyone, but there is only one species that has been given the self awareness and ability to self examine - in essence, an essence that no other creature on Earth has. Only one species "created in His image."

How does religion reconcile with science? When science can answer the simple question, "Why?"

For now, Science can't answer "How?" How did a point of energy suddenly appear in nothingness. Not nothingness like exists between planets, or between stars, or even between galaxies. Real Nothingness, where time, matter, energy don't even exist. And how did this point of energy reach a critical point in which it exploded (and what did it explode into?) and become time and matter and all the other stuff that we study?

Keep in mind that this statement;

quote Evolution is a validated theory (by scientific definition of theory)....

is factually incorrect. Validating a theory requires repeating the experiment and observing that the results repeat predictably.

So far, we have not created life from nothing. We cannot create the building blocks of life from nothing. We cannot create the elements that combine to make the building blocks of life from nothing.

Also, please refrain from the "mystic ritual" talk. I do none of that.

quote Micah 6:8: He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. (NIV)

God does not "look down" on Earth, whether from the sky or from outside the boundaries of the Universe. This is a Deist view, that God created everything then, like a child spinning a top, watches it all to see what happens. There is every evidence that He is here among us. There are 66 books that describe His interest and involvement in Human history. In several of them, written by direct witnesses to the events, He became one of us to provide a Way to holiness for us. We are ascribed what we can't achieve.

Therefore, why can't a God that is beyond the Universe (in every sense of the word) create it, in any way that He has said? Just because many scientists, who receive funding from the same pool of money (and would cease to receive money otherwise) look at a set of data and interpret it the same wrong way, does not mean that it is valid. How does a fossilized tree exist vertically in several strata of fossils? Did it fossilize in levels, over billions of years? Or could a sudden, worldwide cataclysm have deposited it all there in a short period of time? The Universe is 13.7 billion years old? When scientist pointed the Hubble at an empty patch of sky for days, they found an area rich with galaxies and other objects postulated to be 20 - 30 billion light years away. Why can't a God that is beyond the Universe (in every sense of the word) bring the light from these distant bodies to us, though they Universe may, indeed, be young? Aren't they His laws? If He created the Universe, especially in the manner described in His book - He spoke it into existence - why wouldn't He have formed it complete? In my view, He could have created everything all at once, rather than in steps, as described. Could He have done this more for us, whom He loves, than for Himself?

God is so far beyond us that we don't have the ability to comprehend the tools that would allow us to comprehend Him. That He has reached down (metaphorically) to us even once speaks to Love incomprehensible. That He provided us a way to commune with Him eternally is beyond incomprehensible. Why do I listen to a bunch of guys in white lab coats who can't get "Global Climate Change" right who now say that T. Rex did not actually exist, that Earth is how old? How does this get proved? Dis anyone observe this? Why doesn't the scientific process apply?

MEM, I don't know who you've been talking to. God doesn't do anything to "trick you." There are other forces out there to help you misinterpret things.

quote Matthew 7:13 - 14: “Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

And to answer the next post, we are His "office" on planet Earth. The Great Commission and the Great Commandment are our marching orders, and some of us are not as good as others at following those directives as others. I'm getting better, but not nearly as good as I should be, especially calling myself a follower for 27 years. In some ways, I look at my 15 year old son in awe for his faith in many situations, and learn from him constantly.

And the next: That's one of the points that I make (not original) about my faith - Where is Bhudda? Where is Confucius? Where is Mohamed? They are all in their graves. Where is Jesus? Hundreds saw him and interacted with Him after the crucifixion. Otherwise, how could eleven men, not exactly the cream of the crop in their day, essentially change the world after their leader had been killed in the most gruesome ways available at the time?

Khw, the Pope doesn't speak for all Christians. The Bible, like the Constitution, is not a malleable document. We don't all agree that there are "new stories" in the Bible like there are "new rights" in the Constitution. The Bible was written by men wholly inspired by God, and the process of transcribing texts in the Jewish faith (where these guys all came from) is pretty much beyond strict. We have more than enough early texts and fragments that we can be more sure of the original intent of the writer than for any other book ever in existence. The Bible that you pick up from a reputable publisher may have variances in how a concept is described in English, but, from KJV to NKJV to NIV to NET, they all tell the same story. It's not like they're rewriting a book that was a rewrite of a previous version that was a rewrite of a previous version. It's not "playing telephone."

And, as to the story itself, each of the writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, emphasize a different aspect of the life of Jesus the Christ. They are all the same story, but told to a different audience, and, as such, we get a better, more complete view of Him than we would have if there were only one book.

Witchita, behavior control? I am more free to do what I want than I ever was, yet, because of that freedom, I want (not that I always do) to do what glorifies Him. Is that behavior control? Better than punching you in the nose, because you'll just punch me in the nose, literally or figuratively. And it won't be "lights out, I'm dead." You'll still be aware for eternity. If you make your choice to drown, don't hate on me for throwing you a life jacket. It's still on you to put it on.

etofun, cute cartoon, but I don't hang with guys who have those little white collars. ID is a new name, not a new concept. From a poem originally written in 1885, newly translated:

O Lord my God! When I in awesome wonder
Consider all the works Thy hands have made.
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed.

Probably a little different in Swedish, but it had to rhyme.

Why are there no other self examining species on this planet? Surely they've had enough time to evolve. Why don't cats have thumbs? Surely, they'd be more useful on paws for holding mice. Why don't moms have eight arms (My wife's question)? If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

Weird Al was supposed to be on TV this morning, but the Anthony sentencing preempted him.... How is that evolved?

I am not religious, but don't discount anything based on my limited knowledge.
My mother who raised eight hellions was deeply religious.
She kept her belief mostly private and never tried to sway her children.
She said it was a choice we had to make, and there would come a time in our lives when we would have to deal with it and live by our choice.
She was one of the most intelligent beings I have ever known, so I have never bought into "the people who are religious are stupid" mentality.
But I do believe that if not for her belief, she never could have coped with raising her eight hellions with all of the things we put her through.

I must admit that I am pretty much in the same boat as newf.

However I would like to offer http://www.time.com/time/ma...,9171,995465,00.html
I would also like to submit "man created god to explain that which he could not"

you will not find an answer. but, dont let that stop you.

anyone who thinks they know, is wrong.

quote Originally posted by Renegade blob: To put it simply, I'm an atheist. The following is a short list of reasons why I don't believe in a God of any sort in a very sober sort of way, just to be warned: -The main reason is that I'm just not wired to believe, blame it on my upbringing or my sort of logic, -The amount of knowledge we have is the second. For this thread I'd like to keep the questioning of science to the minimum. Evolution is a validated theory (by scientific definition of theory), but a close look could find some holes. My question is, how does religion cope with evolution, fossils, or how the earth is billions of years old, not thousands? For example; let's say that one day a caveman woke up and wondered why. Why does the grass grow? Why does the sun rise, and set? And why am I here and thinking these thoughts? From my point of view, it's much easier for him or her to say something like "God does it" rather than try to understand photosynthesis, the solar system, and a complex brain. I know that the majority of this forum is religious, and I am not trying to say I'm right, you're wrong. I'm just looking for a logical AND CIVIL rebuttal. Also please keep this kind, Here's to hoping this doesn't end up in the trash can.

Hi. I have been on the forum since 1999, and involved in MANY "religious" discussions. The vast majority of the time they have been VERY civil, even though people have believed strongly in what they believe. So there is NO reason for this to wind up in the trash can at all. And you didn't address your post in ANY way in an offensive manner.


You did ask some civilized questions and that is great. I do want to point out to you that when you evaluate the answers, you are already starting out having chosen a side, and so it would be very hard for you to evaluate the answer in an objective manner.

"...I am an atheist..."
"...I'm just not wired to believe..."
"...keep questioning of science to a minimum..."

That isn't a criticism. If you could see my face and hear my tone of voice, that would be clear but you can't. I'm just saying I understand where you are coming from. You aren't coming at this from neutral. I just wanted to make sure YOU knew that you are going to look at any responses through that viewpoint, and aren't starting out from neutrally objective. And that is ok. You are definitely entitled to have your decisions, and you certainly don't owe it to me to defend them. I give you complete respect regarding that.


Why that IS important is that you are not going to "try this case in court" and have ANY eye witness accounts. There isn't going to be an eyewitness to the big bang, or evolution, or God spoke and it was created. This is going to be a CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE. As are probably the MAJORITY of trials--decided on circumstantial evidence. That isn't a bad thing. But even in the courts, if you are STARTING from a certain position, it can change the decision. For example, if the position is "innocent until proven guilty", that can change the decision even with the same circumstantial evidence.


So let's take the science first. Many START with the viewpoint of there is no God, and this all evolved. They take the scientific FACTS that are available, and (there is nothing wrong with this) try to make the science fit their theory. And you are very familiar with that.

Christians (I can't speak for all religions. They can be quite different) will start with the viewpoint that the Bible is true. The will take the scientific FACTS, and see how that fits the Biblical account. Because while the Bible is not a science book, when it does speak of science, it MUST be scientifically accurate, or the Bible then would have error, and if it has error, it isn't a reliable source to base your future on.

So take the fossils you mentioned, as an example. Evolutionary science has had a very hard time taking the FACTS of the fossils and ages, and that many fossils are not in the LAYER they should be in. So they have tried to fit explanations for that problem.

The Bible view would be that there was an actual, literal, world wide flood (Noah and the ark, the great flood, etc.) and that the churning effect and settling of all that water and sediment explains the mixing of the fossil ages.

Well, both these cases are circumstantial cases. Circumstantial cases have actual EVIDENCE (fact). It is how you build your case. And then people decide on THE PREPONDERANCE of the evidence. But even then, good intelligent people can disagree and have hung juries.

But if you are STARTING from an evolutionary truth bias, NO ONE is going to be able to PROVE to you that the Biblical account and explanation of the facts and how they fit is true. And vice versa.


As someone mentioned, evolution is a THEORY. Because the THEORY uses scientific facts to explain it, it does not mean evolution theory is a scientific fact. As someone else has pointed out, to reach scientific fact level, the theory has to be taken and reproduced. Hasn't been done and can't be done. No one has been able to reproduce a big bang, either. They SAY they have "created life" from elements. But they didn't reproduce any big bang. They ADDED energy, and introduced it to a chemical soup, and got a few carbon based molecules, and called it life. Well, that is interesting. It hardly is a reproduction of what evolution claims.


The final bias you hinted at was the example of a man trying to observe the world around him, and how it all came to be. Why did you pick a cave man? Because most people don't think of them as very advanced intellectually.

You mentioned photosynthesis. Good example. What is harder to believe? That chemicals were around, and they somehow over time arranged themselves into the complex system that is photosynthesis just by random chance. Or that someone designed it. What would the preponderance of evidence say? Those are the kinds of questions an OBJECTIVE person would ask.

Again, I'm not picking on you in ANY way. Just discussing. It sounds like you are at an age in life where you've already passed the OBJECTIVE stage. I don't blame you. Intelligent people make a decision on things.


I'll give you one final example if you would like to take an objective look.

The Bible isn't a history book in its primary intent, either. But it needs to be historically accurate, or it loses its credibility, too. There are many SECULARLY VERIFIABLE historical figures in the Bible.

Secular history places Daniel of the Daniel and the lion's den story at 600BC in Babylon. So he wrote his book of Daniel in the late 500's BC. Check out Chapter 8. He describes who are going to be the world super powers for the next 300 years in the future. So imagine it is 2011 today and you are going to outline the future from now until 2311 as to who will be the world leaders. In DETAIL. That is what Daniel did. It is verifiable historically by SECULAR historians. Alexander the great is even mentioned (not as Alexander, but as the great king of the Greeks. The "notable king" in the old King James version). Then in Daniel 9 he explains TO THE WEEK when the jewish Messiah would come and then be killed.

An objective person would have to at least pause and wonder, if he got those intimate prophecies EXACTLY right, is there REALLY something supernatural going on here that I need to take a look at.

If the answer is no, I've already got my mind made up, so be it. As you said, CIVIL discussion. Respect toward others and their rights to their views.

quote Originally posted by Renegade blob: The following is a short list of reasons why I don't believe in a God of any sort in a very sober sort of way, just to be warned: -The main reason is that I'm just not wired to believe, blame it on my upbringing or my sort of logic, but the idea of someone in the sky controlling everything is a bit to far out there. But that's an easy one to answer; lack of faith.

Okay Mister Know-it-all. Tell me, what's the weight of a typical cloud? Once you've gotten the answer, tell us how does it fly?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: you will not find an answer. but, dont let that stop you. anyone who thinks they know, is wrong.

Well if there is a God, the ones who believe will not have the big, "OH CRAP" moment.

How does religion deal with the scientific knowledge that the earth is flat. We know this is true from observable scientific knowledge.
You can't question the science. You must justify why religion doesn't agree with it.

Oh, the earth isn't flat? Well, gee, you see, science and knowledge are always evolving. What we thought we "knew" in the past has since been proven to be inaccurate. But we're still confident that the earth is at the center of the universe and the sun and planets revolve around us. We can observe that directly, so we know it's accurate.

Strip away the dogma (of either science or religion) and it boils down to science explains things we can observe and test. Religion explains things we cannot. Our understanding of both changes over time.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Well if there is a God, the ones who believe will not have the big, "OH CRAP" moment.

lol - only if "as seen on TV"

but - yes - statements like this are exactly why anyone who actually puts an ounce of thought into these things KNOWS the dogmatic approach is wrong, and will be the ones having the "OH CRAP" moment.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: lol - only if "as seen on TV" but - yes - statements like this are exactly why anyone who actually puts an ounce of thought into these things KNOWS the dogmatic approach is wrong, and will be the ones having the "OH CRAP" moment.

Apparently a nerve was struck.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Apparently a nerve was struck.

funny bone?

I suppose you'd have to ask if you know, that (if) and when things were created, were they created to look new? To test as new on the "carbon dater"?

Also one should always ask themselves if the really know what they think they know. I mean look at our limited perspective of the big picture.
Just realizing dark matter and all that.

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
Albert Einstein

Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right.
Abraham Lincoln

Surely God would not have created such a being as man, with an ability to grasp the infinite, to exist only for a day! No, no, man was made for immortality.
Abraham Lincoln

We need to find God, and he cannot be found in noise and restlessness. God is the friend of silence. See how nature - trees, flowers, grass- grows in silence; see the stars, the moon and the sun, how they move in silence...
Mother Teresa

A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
C. S. Lewis

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 07-07-2011).]

Without trying to offend too many people, I think that there are a lot of things that people take literally in religion, that probably shouldn't be done so.

I don't deny that there was perhaps Noah's Ark... but I don't necessarily believe that is all that happened. I consider the possibility that a lot of the stuff in the Old Testament is but the explaination from the four major tribes to explain their understanding of how the Earth was created, etc. There are two Genesis sections, they do contradict themselves, so as a believer and a Catholic, I am not really expected to consider them literally... how can you when they contradict themselves???

If you look at the New Testament, it's a much newer book, much more is plausible, and history very much compares and matches up with many of the major occurances that happen throughout the Bible. So I take that much more literally.


I am a Catholic, and I believe fully in evolution. I believe science is our explaination of God's creations.

Much of the animosity that's created which goes against conventional wisdom from the old and new testament (taken literally), exists because there are many from the "evangelical" church denominations who believe that if something in the bible is proven wrong, it will somehow cause a complete unravelling of religion, and the faith will be destroyed.

Case in point, I see a lot of heavily religious people who are evangelical, and they "say" that they support the space program (NASA), but in the same breath say that a mission to Mars is a collosal and stupid waste of money. They won't give you a reason, but they feel this way because their pastor tells them so. The logic (I believe) behind it is that they believe that if we some how prove that their CAN be, or that there IS any kind of microscopic life of any kind (frozen in the ice, or otherwise) that it will somehow cause the church to lose face, and there will be a mass exodus from the religion.

As an evolutionist, I always go back to the argument of... what do you think is more amazing... the God who creates every single thing individually? Or the God who created the FORMULA that creates life itself through Macro and Micro evolution???


I was raised a Catholic, but never really had any particular strong faith until I was a little bit older (as an adult). I've had some very personal, serious, and freakishly non-coincidental things happen to me that simply cannot be explained by science, that I don't wish to get into right now, but that is why I have a completely unwaivering belief in God (personally).

If we find aliens on another planet... I simply believe that they too were ALSO created by God, and my faith won't be shaken in the LEAST.


So that's my take, as a hard-core Republican, that is also a Catholic.

Here is some clarification of some beliefs that are out there
--

“Question: "What is theistic evolution?"

Answer: Theistic evolution is one of three major origin-of-life worldviews, the other two being atheistic evolution (also commonly known as Darwinian evolution and naturalistic evolution) and special creation.

Atheistic evolution says that there is no God and that life can and did emerge naturally from preexisting, non-living building blocks under the influence of natural laws (like gravity, etc), although the origin of those natural laws is not explained. Special creation says that God created life directly, either from nothing or from preexisting materials.

Theistic evolution says one of two things. The first option is that there is a God, but He was not directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to atheistic evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.

The second alternative of theistic evolution is that God did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were constant. He led life step by step down a path that took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s evolutionary tree of life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), God stepped in. This view is similar to special creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it.

There are numerous differences between the biblical special creation perspective and the theistic evolution perspective. One significant difference concerns their respective views on death. Theistic evolutionists tend to believe that the earth is billions of years old and that the geologic column containing the fossil record represents long epochs of time. Since man does not appear until late in the fossil record, theistic evolutionists believe that many creatures lived, died, and became extinct long before man’s belated arrival. This means that death existed before Adam and his sin.

Biblical creationists believe that the earth is relatively young and that the fossil record was laid down during and after Noah’s flood. The stratification of the layers is thought to have occurred due to hydrologic sorting and liquefaction, both of which are observed phenomena. This puts the fossil record and the death and carnage which it describes hundreds of years after Adam’s sin.

Another significant difference between the two positions is how they read Genesis. Theistic evolutionists tend to subscribe to either the day-age theory or the framework theory, both of which are allegorical interpretations of the Genesis 1 creation week. Young earth creationists subscribe to a literal 24-hour day as they read Genesis 1. Both of the theistic evolutionist views are flawed from a Christian perspective in that they do not line up with the Genesis creation account.

Theistic evolutionists imagine a Darwinian scenario in which stars evolved, then our solar system, then earth, then plants and animals, and eventually man. The two theistic evolution viewpoints disagree as to the role God played in the unfolding of events, but they generally agree on the Darwinian timeline. This timeline is in conflict with the Genesis creation account. For example, Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on day one and the sun, moon, and stars were not created until day four. Some argue that the wording of Genesis suggests the sun, moon, and stars were actually created on day one but they could not be seen through earth’s atmosphere until day four, leading to their placement on day four. This is a bit of a stretch, as the Genesis account is pretty clear that the earth did not have an atmosphere until the second day. If the sun, moon, and stars were created on day one, they should have been visible on day one.

Also, the Genesis account clearly says that birds were created with sea creatures on day five while land animals were not created until day six. This is in direct opposition to the Darwinian view that birds evolved from land animals. The biblical account says that birds preceded land animals. The theistic evolutionist view says exactly the opposite.

One of the most unfortunate trends in modern Christianity is that of reinterpreting Genesis to accommodate evolutionary theories. Many well-known Bible teachers and apologists have caved in to the evolutionists and have come to believe that adhering to a literal interpretation of Genesis is somehow detrimental to the credibility of Christians. If anything, evolutionists lose respect for those whose belief in the Bible is so tenuous that they are willing to quickly compromise it. Although the number of true creationists may be dwindling in academia, several faithful organizations such as Answers in Genesis, the Creation Research Society, and the Institute for Creation Research have affirmed that the Bible is not only compatible with real science, but affirm that not a single word in the Bible has ever been disproved by true science. The Bible is God’s living Word, given to us by the Creator of the universe, and His description of how He created that universe is not compatible with the theory of evolution, even a “theistic” understanding of evolution.”

http://www.gotquestions.org...istic-evolution.html

Parts of the Bible can't be taken literally.
"A day is like 1000 years..."
That's a similie. It can't be literally accurate.

"God created the heavens and the earth."
Ok - that can be taken literally and still agree with science. It doesn't mention "HOW" it was done.
Even frontal lobe's comment about science claiming to have created life from elements doesn't disprove God, and can even support it. We created the experiment, set the conditions and allowed it to happen. There was an intelligence from outside the system creating the conditions that allowed life to spontaneously happen.

The Bible isn't a scientific journal. It's written as stories. If you tell someone you got an emergency phone call and took off in a flash, that doesn't mean you literally disappeared in a flash of light.

Some things in the Bible are very specific. The description of how the Ark of the Covenant was to be built is very precise. Accounts of generations before the books were written are more vague.

To us, the lab experiment is science. To the "life" created within it, we could be considered nothing other than a god, our existence is so far beyond it's comprehension. If that life created in the lab grew and evolved, became sentient and developed scientific intelligence over the ages it might one day understand the chemical reaction that started it's existence in that lab. Does that mean no one was there to perform the experiment?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: How does religion deal with the scientific knowledge that the earth is flat. We know this is true from observable scientific knowledge. You can't question the science. You must justify why religion doesn't agree with it. Oh, the earth isn't flat? Well, gee, you see, science and knowledge are always evolving. What we thought we "knew" in the past has since been proven to be inaccurate. But we're still confident that the earth is at the center of the universe and the sun and planets revolve around us. We can observe that directly, so we know it's accurate. Strip away the dogma (of either science or religion) and it boils down to science explains things we can observe and test. Religion explains things we cannot. Our understanding of both changes over time.

Science used to be well-mannered gentlemens clubs, sitting in easy chairs smoking pipes and theorizing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

Then scientific method got involved. Introduction to theories and experiment legitimized what science is today, through experiment. The earth was "flat" long before real scientific method was practiced. When did the earth stop being flat? When scientific method, observation, and physical evidence proved without a shadow of a doubt that the Earth was indeed round.

The real question is, when we believed the Earth was flat, did we hear the tree fall in the forest?

OK, I just got home from work and have been reading all this for about half an hour, so my head kinda hurts. But I have to say this is awesome. This is exactly what I was hoping this thread would be like; detailed opinions from: the very religions, people on the fence, and the not so religions. And what I meant by not questioning science (evolution) to much was just dismissing it as flawed data, or 'evilution'. There is way to much information here to respond to, but I don't think it really has to be responded to, from me at least. Most posts have very good information, thanks!

Frontal lobe: You're completely right that I have a bias, nothing that can be said on here is going to change my views. I think the only way I'll ever believe in God is if He tells me to himself. But I didn't like the picture in my head of all religions people just being uneducated in science, and over-educated in their religion. Yes, that is a very cruel way of putting it, but that's why I went looking for answers several years ago, and my perception hasn't really changed until today.

I have taken basic biology, astronomy, chemistry and other science classes in high school (I'm 19), but as my mom points out some of the stuff I learned in those, she didn't study until college. Which is why I think that the younger generations have a better chance of understanding evolution and it's implications. We all have a hard time understanding large numbers (anything over 100 is hard to picture), and that's is what I think evolution has against it the most. It's hard for most people, if not all, to think that creatures can change over time. I've studied a lot of evolution out of school and have convinced myself that evolution, specifically the ability for genetic mutations and natural selection to alter the course of a species, is plausible and even true. Which is why I blame the lack of knowledge to those who dismiss evolution as implausible. However, putting my bias aside for a minute, and trying to see what some of you see (and feel), I can easily see how evolution could need some help.

I've also learned from all of your' excellent responses that religion can coincide with science, which is what I was hoping to answer in the first place. Thanks especially to all the people that believe that the bible is fact, your opinions are the ones I'm really interested in. I'll post more later, but I need to re-read and think about some of the above posts first.

quote Originally posted by madcurl: Okay Mister Know-it-all. Tell me, what's the weight of a typical cloud? Once you've gotten the answer, tell us how does it fly?

I'm assuming this isn't to be taken literally, but I don't get the metaphor. I am really confused and mildly frustrated by this. I know the answer, but not it's meaning.

quote Originally posted by madcurl: Okay Mister Know-it-all. Tell me, what's the weight of a typical cloud? Once you've gotten the answer, tell us how does it fly?

quote Originally posted by Renegade blob:I'm assuming this isn't to be taken literally, but I don't get the metaphor. I am really confused and mildly frustrated by this. I know the answer, but not it's meaning.

Not a metaphorically question. What is your answer?

One thing to look out for is complexity. The more complex the arguement, the more it is likely to be flawed. We all can't be Einstein right?

The truth is likely simple. The earth, for a variety of reasons sits in a precarious position supporting life as we know it. There is no good reason for it. Why does the earth maintain an orbit? Scientists will tell us the formula but, why does it maintain a stability for eons?

The molecular makeup of mankind can be explained. How we evolve in an organized way in the womb is still a wonder and not replicated. The occurrence of death still is not well understood at all.

I tend to believe Einstein's law of relativity. I learned it in highschool. In case we all don't know it, the law says something like "all matter tends to become more random and less stable" or many words to that effect.

So why all the stability? Species, despite what evolutions say, don't go through dramatic change although there is some movement, such as the breeding of dogs. We also have some "micro evolution" in people, but a nose is still a nose etc.

I just can't fathom how the world as we know it could go on in a relatively stable way without there being some control in the picture. There is no macro scientific reason to show why the planet and its inhabitants are stable in their breeds, animal types, etc.

Look at the Sun, it goes through cycles. Right now it is in a quiet cycle, yet with the output being down by trillions of units of heat, the earth still has liveable temperatures. Why is that?

What I am saying is that there is no good reason I can think of to say that there is no "God" controlling the universe as we know it.

The Bible talks about the earth existing prior to God creating the current living conditions by creating them. So what happened to kill the dinosaurs? We still don't know, but it gets discussed heavily. Why didn't some survive? Why don't we see homo sapiens in the same strata as dinosaur bones?

I don't understand this stuff, and I likely never will. Do I think there is a God controlling the Universe? Yes I do.

Do I believe Jesus was a historical figure and is still alive? Yes I do. Why you ask? Well, it is a matter of faith. If you have you have it, and if you don't you don't. I don't have faith in allot of stuff too. I do have faith in God.

Can I explain answers to your well thought questions. Nope. Good questions though.

Arn

On second thought there is one question I can give an answer to, about the universe being 13.7ish billion years old.

If you are a creationist, you automatically believe that when a tree was created, it was created with a memory. That is to say it had tree rings the same as a new growth tree develops naturally. All things would have been created with history built in, including the earth. Of course that again is a matter of faith.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Science used to be well-mannered gentlemens clubs, sitting in easy chairs smoking pipes and theorizing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Then scientific method got involved. Introduction to theories and experiment legitimized what science is today, through experiment. The earth was "flat" long before real scientific method was practiced. When did the earth stop being flat? When scientific method, observation, and physical evidence proved without a shadow of a doubt that the Earth was indeed round. The real question is, when we believed the Earth was flat, did we hear the tree fall in the forest?

I agree. The point was, what we claimed to "know" as "scientific fact" has changed as we learned we were wrong.

Normally I'd be all over a discussion like this, on this particular topic. Right now though? With all the long winded posts, I'm too lazy to read them all.

As far as your original questions op:

First (and I hate to argue for the other side here), look up a gentleman by the name of William Lane Craig. Watch and/or listen to his lectures and debates on youtube. May even be free to download on his website, www.reasonablefaith.org.

2. I also suggest watching the History Channel (?) documentary "History of the Devil" (may be BBC or PBS, not entirely certain).

Those 2 combined should answer a lot of your questions. If not, send me a PM and I'll give ya a phone number of a buddy of mine who can definitely "answer" your questions on religion. He's a pastor at an E Free Christian church, and is almost through with his masters degree in Christian Apologetics

That said, I will take my leave of this thread

Also keep in mind that as sure as some are that it is God and Jesus that are the "truth" so are there plenty that think that Jesus hasn't arrived yet or that it's Mohammed that is the important one, or Buddha, or Vishnu, or...etc. It's not only science that "evolves". People like to say that they think the Bible or Old testament is not to be taken literally but there are plenty that think it is to be meant literally. Some think the Bible is "the word of God" others think it's man interpretation.

Science seems to try and answer the existential questions with hard facts but is more open to change (good science that is) with new information IMO. A good scientist is willing to accept his theory can be proven wrong and puts it out there to be challenged, tested and verified or proven false. If it is shown to be right or wrong then it can always be added to or adapted with new discoveries. it is difficult for many religions reconsile things that are proven false but many chaulk it up to having faith or it just being a "parable".

As I said neither "side" has definate answers and it would seem easier to just bet on the one that makes us feel good but isn't it interesting that our brains can't seem to grasp eternity/infinity using religion or science. All you have to do is try and answer "how did it all begin or how will end" and you're stumped Some see that question alone as proof that there is something greater than us others see no such thing. I tend to think spirituality is in us for some reason other than just to make ourselves feel better yet I think that man may not have found the reason quite yet.

Kind of why I get annoyed when people say they "know" or someone else is wrong and they are right about such issues. How can you or I be any more right about it that anyone else?

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-07-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Science seems to try and answer the existential questions with hard facts but is more open to change (good science that is) with new information IMO. A good scientist is willing to accept his theory can be proven wrong and puts it out there to be challenged, tested and verified or proven false.

Congratulations. You just debunked Anthropogenic Climate Change.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Congratulations. You just debunked Anthropogenic Climate Change.

I'll take your bait Professor, how's that now? The best climate scientists are constantly putting their work out there for peer review yet it's the deniers that try and use the same tired old arguements to say nothing is happening or there is some other reason. The scientists I've seen are willing to admit when proven wrong and are more than willing to adapt to better or updated understanding and info.

Nice try though.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Without trying to offend too many people, I think that there are a lot of things that people take literally in religion, that probably shouldn't be done so. I don't deny that there was perhaps Noah's Ark... but I don't necessarily believe that is all that happened. I consider the possibility that a lot of the stuff in the Old Testament is but the explanation from the four major tribes to explain their understanding of how the Earth was created, etc. There are two Genesis sections, they do contradict themselves, so as a believer and a Catholic, I am not really expected to consider them literally... how can you when they contradict themselves??? If you look at the New Testament, it's a much newer book, much more is plausible, and history very much compares and matches up with many of the major occurrences that happen throughout the Bible. So I take that much more literally.

Remember; the writers of the New Testament had no qualms with the veracity of the Old Testament. In fact, it was the only word of God they had until they were visited by Him.

Interestingly, most ancient civilizations have a flood story, including Sumerian, Indian, Peruvian, Egyptian and Native American. The Chinese, however, have one of the most complete stories, and many ancient characters represent the flood itself. See: http://creation.com/images/...9_2/j19_2_96-108.pdf

quote I am a Catholic, and I believe fully in evolution. I believe science is our explaination of God's creations.

The Catholic view of evolution has, itself, evolved. My wife, a Catholic and a Catholic school student, has repeatedly stated that she learned the Origin of the Universe as it is found in Genesis.

quote Much of the animosity that's created which goes against conventional wisdom from the old and new testament (taken literally), exists because there are many from the "evangelical" church denominations who believe that if something in the bible is proven wrong, it will somehow cause a complete unraveling of religion, and the faith will be destroyed. Case in point, I see a lot of heavily religious people who are evangelical, and they "say" that they support the space program (NASA), but in the same breath say that a mission to Mars is a colossal and stupid waste of money. They won't give you a reason, but they feel this way because their pastor tells them so. The logic (I believe) behind it is that they believe that if we some how prove that their CAN be, or that there IS any kind of microscopic life of any kind (frozen in the ice, or otherwise) that it will somehow cause the church to lose face, and there will be a mass exodus from the religion.

I don't see how microorganisms found on Mars, or sentient life on a planet somewhere out there should shake my faith. In the case of the former, so, what? Did God need to tell us that He put it there? In creating the "lights in the sky," why would He not apply the same level of detail to all of them. And in the case of the latter, while the former argument holds, I would further say that there would be a similar provision made for their eternal souls, as well. God loves all of His creation, and would have provided, regardless of location - even in M101.

quote As an evolutionist, I always go back to the argument of... what do you think is more amazing... the God who creates every single thing individually? Or the God who created the FORMULA that creates life itself through Macro and Micro evolution???

The latter. He knows me personally and loves me despite how I've turned out. And He sent His only Son to die for me, specifically, just as He did for everyone, specifically. The Deist, who would argue the former, would therefore believe in an impersonal God. The evidence, found in the NT, is wholly against.

quote I was raised a Catholic, but never really had any particular strong faith until I was a little bit older (as an adult). I've had some very personal, serious, and freakishly non-coincidental things happen to me that simply cannot be explained by science, that I don't wish to get into right now, but that is why I have a completely unwavering belief in God (personally).

Further evidence of a personal God.

quote If we find aliens on another planet... I simply believe that they too were ALSO created by God, and my faith won't be shaken in the LEAST. So that's my take, as a hard-core Republican, that is also a Catholic.

Along with my take, as an Evangelical.