Futile attempt to discuss religion in general

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Future CEO, Dec 28, 2006.

  1. #26 Blitzschnell, Dec 29, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016

    "Natural selection and other scientific theories are superior to a 'God hypothesis' in explaining the living world and perhaps even the cosmos."

    "He states in Chapter 4 that evolution by natural selection can be used to demonstrate that the argument from design is wrong."

    WTF is with atheists not understanding that a lot of religious people accept everything science proves beyond a reasonable doubt in that said theories do NOT have to conflict with belief in a higher power? There's a pretty thick line between fundamentalists and atheists.
  2. But you can't drink in public over there <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/sad.gif"></A>
  3. #28 MR2T, Dec 29, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I think they're well aware of that but some theories like macro evolution directly conflict with religion.
  4. Oh jeez. A third-rate biologist just disproved the existence of god!

    I mean really. All of us religious folks ought to just pack it in. We're obviously done for.
  5. #30 lizardmech, Dec 29, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Claiming some magical jew walked around resurrecting people and shit a few thousand years ago contradicts science and history.
  6. Dawkins makes some valid points, but is so close minded it's frightening. Also, he does interview babbling morons to represent all religous people.
  7. no they dont. Only if you take a literal interpretation of genesis.
  8. but some christians would absolutely love to do that (and in fact, they often do. check out some of the good st. paddy's day parades... hell, you can drink whatever you want in philly if you've got a bag. in vegas, they dont care at all!), most likely the ones that brewed a lot of their own alcohol to begin with <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
  9. The best interview in the show I thought was with the very moderate/liberal Anglican minister guy. There wasn't an inch of space between his and Dawkin's view on things... except the minister guy insisted for some reason on holding onto those last threads of religion (he's one of those "Jesus probably existed and was a good guy nonetheless, the rest of the bible is probably bunk" liberal Protestants, which is probably the main thread of 'Christianity' here anymore.

    IMHO and according to Dawkins, not only is this insincere fence sitting (to not believe in any of the tenants of religion, but to insist you do), but it just perpetuates religion in general and allows those less rational/well-intentioned to do their damage in its name...
  10. Here in Finland the state church (with like 95% of the population) is Evangelical Lutheran and their views are exactly that. Most priests approve abortion, civil unions etc. But then what is the point of religion anymore? If it brings nothing to the table?

    In some ways I better understand suicide bombers and abortion doctor murderers than people who go to church but adhere to everything science and humanism offer. It's so contradictory.
  11. I too am positively flabbergasted.
  12. It seems war is raging in the regions where Islam, Judaism and Christianity have their strongholds. Zen-Buddhism hardly gives justification to kill.
  13. Yeah, a professor at Oxford. Really third-rate.
  14. North America actually tends to have a lot more liberal churches than Europe (hence e.g. the schism between the Anglican church in the UK and the US/Canada over gay marriage, ministers, etc)... a lot of people here insist on going to church, but don't believe in religion <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>

    The United Church of Canada (Canada's largest protestant demonination) is basically Unitarian anymore: it's more a social club than a religion. There are lots of similar United-aligned churches in the US.
  15. Old story, But I think it should be posted in this thread..

    quote from washtimes.com;

    Geneticist claims to have found 'God gene' in humans

    By Elizabeth Day

    LONDON — An American molecular geneticist has concluded after comparing more than 2,000 DNA samples that a person's capacity to believe in God is linked to brain chemicals.
    His findings have been criticized by leading clerics, who challenge the existence of a "God gene" and say the research undermines a fundamental tenet of faith — that spiritual enlightenment is achieved through divine transformation rather than the brain's electrical impulses.
    Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, asked volunteers 226 questions in order to determine how spiritually connected they felt to the universe.

    The higher their score, the greater the person's ability to believe in a greater spiritual force and, Mr. Hamer found, the more likely they were to share the gene VMAT2.
    Studies on twins showed that those with this gene, a vesicular monoamine transporter that regulates the flow of mood-altering chemicals in the brain, were more likely to develop a spiritual belief.

    Growing up in a religious environment was said to have little effect on belief.
    Mr. Hamer, who in 1993 claimed to have identified a DNA sequence linked to male homosexuality, said the existence of the "God gene" explained why some people had more aptitude for spirituality than others.
    "Buddha, Muhammad and Jesus all shared a series of mystical experiences or alterations in consciousness and thus probably carried the gene," he said. "This means that the tendency to be spiritual is part of genetic makeup. This is not a thing that is strictly handed down from parents to children. It could skip a generation. It's like intelligence."

    His findings, published in a book, "The God Gene: How Faith Is Hard-Wired Into Our Genes," are being greeted skeptically by many in the religious establishment.
    The Rev. John Polkinghorne, a fellow of the Royal Society and a canon theologian at Liverpool Cathedral, said: "The idea of a God gene goes against all my personal theological convictions. You can't cut faith down to the lowest common denominator of genetic survival. It shows the poverty of reductionist thinking."
    The Rev. Walter Houston, the chaplain of Mansfield College, Oxford, and a fellow in theology, said: "Religious belief is not just related to a person's constitution. It's related to society, tradition, character — everything's involved. Having a gene that could do all that seems pretty unlikely to me."
    Mr. Hamer insisted, however, that his research was not antithetical to a belief in God.
    "Religious believers can point to the existence of God genes as one more sign of the Creator's ingenuity — a clever way to help humans acknowledge and embrace a divine presence," he said.
  16. Yeah, the God-gene thing is LOL.
  17. Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion. You could dislike religion and like Buddhism.
  18. how is going to church and adhering to science at all contradictory? it's one thing if you're part of some silly fundamentalist denomination, but most churches arent that wacky, let alone contradicting science.
  19. We have 18 year old drinking, 15/16 year old sex and roads with corners, what's your fun?
  20. We don't have any of that stuff here.
  21. being able to afford said alcohol <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/tongue.gif"></A>
  22. Your reply sucked/lacked humour. Steve's was awesome.
  23. I'll ask him for his notes. Thanks for the heads up.
  24. But even the moderate churches take the story of Jesus literally, which doesn't seem to fit in with science or secular history to me.
  25. Of course it doesn't. The fact that Christians believe that Jesus could raise the dead and whatnot doesn't mean that Christianity conflicts with science in that science says that no one can raise the dead. Jesus is obviously an exception, which is why he's worshipped in the first place.

    Edit: Also, I'll have you notice that Dawkins doesn't try o disprove Christianity. He tries to disprove the existance of God altogether. Big difference.

Share This Page