Religion's hypocrisy

[darin]

Why is it that your story is correct, and their's is wrong?

Maybe I'll ask you that same question? Why is evolution (which actually doesn't address creation/start of life, iirc) correct, and ID is wrong? You have MORE FAITH in the leaps and bounds of 'logic' required to believe it. Simple as that.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

ID is based soley on scientific facts of this physical world. Its the conclusion that says it must be of "Intelligent Design", not the method.

Like the fact that a Grand Wizard waved his magic wand and made everything in the universe. (I am not intending to offend anyone with this statement, but that is the way I picture the creationist theory)

[darin]

Like the fact that a Grand Wizard waved his magic wand and made everything in the universe.

Dude - do you realize it's a logical fallacy to use Appeal to Ridicule? Each time you and others simply try to make YOUR point look better through ad hominem or red herring (trying to shift the convo so people have to prove GOD as well), you actually look WORSE.

[theHawk]

Like the fact that a Grand Wizard waved his magic wand and made everything in the universe. (I am not intending to offend anyone with this statement, but that is the way I picture the creationist theory)

As opposed to ....your vision of how it all came to be? Enlighten us...

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Dude - do you realize it's a logical fallacy to use Appeal to Ridicule? Each time you and others simply try to make YOUR point look better through ad hominem or red herring (trying to shift the convo so people have to prove GOD as well), you actually look WORSE.

...but in the book of Genesis, God said, "Let there be light...." etc....I am not insulting or attacking, just saying that I picture the story as a Grand Wizard waving his hands and "making it so."

I don't care how you percieve me, that is not what this discussion was intended to do. It was intended to provoke thought, and discuss in a civil manner. BLIND Faith (in anything) without thought and challenge is a pretty empty shell, and a very dangerous place to stand in my opinion.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

As opposed to ....your vision of how it all came to be? Enlighten us...

I don't know how it all came to be....all I know is that this physical realm exists (due to whatever reason you need to explain it) and when we die the physical realm continues, and as sentient beings we have many diffferent ideas of what happens afterward.

The hypocrisy comes in, when one belief calls the other blasphemous, and to challenge the popular belief of the culture, time or populace typically labels one as a heretic.

[darin]

...but in the book of Genesis, God said, "Let there be light...." etc....I am not insulting or attacking, just saying that I picture the story as a Grand Wizard waving his hands and "making it so."

I don't care how you percieve me, that is not what this discussion was intended to do. It was intended to provoke thought, and discuss in a civil manner. BLIND Faith (in anything) without thought and challenge is a pretty empty shell, and a very dangerous place to stand in my opinion.

Oh come-on now. You know you are poking-fun by using the term Grand Wizard.

Again with the red herring. Nowhere before your last reply had ANYONE spoke of 'blind faith'. Now you're trying to shift the discussion.

If you want to discuss 'faith' maybe a thread called "how much faith is okay?" where we can talk about how we ALL use faith, day to day.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Oh come-on now. You know you are poking-fun by using the term Grand Wizard.

Honestly, not.....It is just how I picture it.....in my mind's eye as I imagine it happening.

It requires faith to have any belief in religion, and the basis must be complete and whole, or, as I have heard it in the past, condemnation to hell is the result.

Of course, I am no expert, just voicing my opinions and looking to engage in some thought provoking conversation.

[Hobbit]

Oh please, your tone throughout this entire thread has been hostile to any idea that isn't yours. I have no reason to believe that you're actually sharing anything serious when even the title of the thread is a taunt.

As for my weighing in:

1) I do, in fact, believe in God.

2) I do not believe in evolution.

3) The two have nothing to do with each other, as I once believed that evolution was true, but was a process guided by God.

I simply find the idea of complex cells, such as nerves, retina cells, bone, or even sperm having enough beneficial mutations occurring at once, even given however many billion years it's had, rather far-fetched. DNA alone leads me to believe that someone or something created us.

[Dilloduck]

. BLIND Faith (in anything) without thought and challenge is a pretty empty shell, and a very dangerous place to stand in my opinion.

So is blind doubt !

[Hagbard Celine]

Oh please, your tone throughout this entire thread has been hostile to any idea that isn't yours. I have no reason to believe that you're actually sharing anything serious when even the title of the thread is a taunt.

As for my weighing in:

1) I do, in fact, believe in God.

2) I do not believe in evolution.

3) The two have nothing to do with each other, as I once believed that evolution was true, but was a process guided by God.

I simply find the idea of complex cells, such as nerves, retina cells, bone, or even sperm having enough beneficial mutations occurring at once, even given however many billion years it's had, rather far-fetched. DNA alone leads me to believe that someone or something created us.

I just can't get there. It seems more probable to me, taking into account that every other occurence in our reality is guided by natural forces, that natural rather than supernatural forces led life to where it is today. And it seems simplistic to me to write-off the existence of a complex system by attributing it to a supernatural creator, of whose existence there is zero proof, when we are completely capable of full understanding.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Oh please, your tone throughout this entire thread has been hostile to any idea that isn't yours. I have no reason to believe that you're actually sharing anything serious when even the title of the thread is a taunt.

As for my weighing in:

1) I do, in fact, believe in God.

2) I do not believe in evolution.

3) The two have nothing to do with each other, as I once believed that evolution was true, but was a process guided by God.

I simply find the idea of complex cells, such as nerves, retina cells, bone, or even sperm having enough beneficial mutations occurring at once, even given however many billion years it's had, rather far-fetched. DNA alone leads me to believe that someone or something created us.

Sorry if you have taken my opinions as hostile...I do not intend for it to be that way, I am only questioning, and I understand how it can be uncomfortable to justify a position without truly knowing, except from a position of belief, and no tangible evidence.

I appreciate everyone's thoughts and in no way have meant to demean or belittle anyone's position....actually, I have been very complimentary....it is nice to hear everyone's position....even when not something I can embrace.

As with your last paragraph, I am on the opposite side of the fence, finding it very far fetched that a deity created DNA and everything else that surrounds us....again, not condemning your belief, just pointng out that I cannot accept it as the truth for certain.

Respectfully,

[theHawk]

I don't know how it all came to be....all I know is that this physical realm exists (due to whatever reason you need to explain it) and when we die the physical realm continues, and as sentient beings we have many diffferent ideas of what happens afterward.

The hypocrisy comes in, when one belief calls the other blasphemous, and to challenge the popular belief of the culture, time or populace typically labels one as a heretic.

So, you admit you don't know. Well if you don't have a clue about how it did begin, why are you giving anyone else shit for their beliefs?

Also, what makes it hypocrisy if someone calls you a heretic because you don't believe in what they do. Thats what a heretic is, someone that says or does things that are an attack on your religious beliefs. My question is why would you care what people of certain religion call you if you don't belong to it? I'm sure Muslims would think I am a blasphemous pig because I call the prophet Muhammed a warmongering pedophile. The fact that they might call me that isn't what makes them hypocrits.

[The ClayTaurus]

But it is mostly-modern-human. Everytime somebody finds a varient from 'the norm' they wanna say it's some 'ape-man'. I've read that article, and articles explaining why people who wrote THAT article are wrong.



Because Evolution requires a HUGE amount of faith. The 'opposite' of having creation started through somebody's will starts like this:

"Just by Chance....live evolved from non-life. We can't say how it happened, nor can we reproduce the phenominon, nor can we observe it happening around us...but we 'just got lucky' and chemicals decided to evolve into life..."

Wow.

That's illogical.

However.

"God created life..." Makes more sense on several levels. First, because I've experienced God. I know He's real. Second, because it's absurd to say life somehow 'happened by chance'.

Who created God? What is God's origin?

[Hobbit]

I just can't get there. It seems more probable to me, taking into account that every other occurence in our reality is guided by natural forces, that natural rather than supernatural forces led life to where it is today. And it seems simplistic to me to write-off the existence of a complex system by attributing it to a supernatural creator, of whose existence there is zero proof, when we are completely capable of full understanding.

This is why I think we were created.

For a long time, we had no idea who made the Easter Island statues. However, we saw the complex nature of the statue and assumed that they had been created by someone, rather than the result of 'natural forces,' such as erosion. Therefore, we began the search for the creator and eventually figured out how it was done.

Stonehenge is similar. Last I checked, the Celts who occupied Britain at the time it was made had no known technology capable of lifting stones of that size. Now, having ne evidence of any kind of a creator for Stonehenge, we looked at the structure and thought that it was highly improbable that rocks had just broken and fallen in that formation. That being the case, we assume somebody made stonehenge and work from there.

Now, the odds of the Easter Island statues or Stonehenge being created randomly by 'natural forces' is astronomical, but is still nothing compared to the odds of a randomly occuring flagellum, much less something as complex as a rudimentary eye. Therefore, just like Stonehenge, the craftmanship of the creation is evidence of the creator.