Religions?

[Kaymyth she/her]

 

Time for a specifically tailored joke! Who knows? You might be pleasantly surprised.

 

via Imgflip Meme Maker

 

Edit to add: If it's too "tailored" (i.e. no one gets it/it seems mean-spirited as a result) I'll add in the reference later... and unlike the TV series LOST, all will be revealed!)

 

Um....do not poke HappyFunDeity?  HappyFunDeity does not like to be poked?

 

Seriously, I got nothin'.

[Orlion Blight he/him]

Um....do not poke HappyFunDeity?  HappyFunDeity does not like to be poked?

 

Seriously, I got nothin'.

 

As designed

 

It is Mistrunner and Slowshift and all their ilk that I expect to "get it"

[Mistrunner]

I GETS IT!

[Voidus]

@Voidus

1. I understand that atheists have that perception of Christians "witnessing." I get that it can be offensive. I'm just asking you to please understand that most do it because they genuinely care.

2.

Oh, I totally realize that none of these verses are "scientific evidence." While some are awfully hard to skirt around, a single verse (or even a lot) will not convince a rational atheist. I think, though, that by focusing on what the Bible does not explain, you lose focus on what your own beliefs cannot explain (I assume here that you believe in evolution) Of course, we all do that. We always will tend to gloss over our own belief system's faults and exaggerate those of other belief systems.

What can/does my religion not explain? A lot, I'm sure. You could probably give me a list. I might could, but of course, it would e subjective (as would yours). My list would likely leave out some major critical flaw. If you addressed said critical flaw, and I didn't have an answer, I would probably say, "I have faith that the answers will eventually become clear to us," which means, "I have no clue, but Jesus," you would mentally laugh, and we would move on.

The same happens for evolution. I can ask a simple question like, "How did something come from nothing," or "How did life begin," or "How do you explain irreducible complexity," and I guarantee you that the answer would be something like, "Just because science doesn't have all the answers now doesn't mean we won't have them later." Essentially, what that means is, "I have faith in science to solve all the problems." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I perceive it. Now that's certainly not a bad thing. People have to have faith in something. My point is to say that the difference between "religion" and "science" isn't really that big. You too believe in a religion, with the deity of science. You have faith that science can provide the answers to ultimately unobservable phenomena. If you believe that that is not the case, fine. I beg to differ.

So do Christians. It's really no different. The main difference is that Christianity has the whole afterlife and forgiveness of sins thing. A load of crap? You obviously think so. It does sound pretty ridiculous, doesn't it? I thought it was crap too. Everytime someone told me the salvation story, I just wanted to barf. Until I started getting into the study of philosophy and ethics. Then I at least believed in a deity of some sort. Then I went religion shopping, and discovered that Christianity's beliefs seemed to work pretty well. At this point (after a while of following stupid rituals), I realized that actually believing anything (ANYTHING) requires faith. No system can explain everything. Evolution cannot fully account for philosophy, logic, human emotion, music and other things. The Bible cannot account for some advances in modern science. I think the reason why so many rational people (or xNTx personality types) have a problem with religion is that they don't like not being able to explain stuff. Well, strike that. I KNOW that that is the reason. The idea of being vulnerable to irrationality and "faith" frankly scares me to death. It took me the longest time to bridge the gap between my head and my heart. I would tell you how it happened, as it has great personal meaning to me, but you would probably think, "Wow, yet another emotional story about yet another Christian who 'found God. What a surprise."

Where am I going with this......? Ah yes, ration cannot do everything for you. That's pretty much the crux of what I'm saying. You have faith right now in what I see as an inherently flawed belief system without all the answers.

From your perspective, the same applies for me, most likely.

Now, I have more to say about rationality and perceptions, if you care after this longwinded post...but I have to sleep and go to work in five hours, so not right now...

I've debated for a while whether or not to respond here as this touches on a couple of sore points for me, namely the 'science is a religion/your god' point but hey, things have been kept civil so far so why not?

Spoilered for potential to get into slightly more in-depth discussion, for those not interested in potentially touchy topics go no further. Or do if you feel like it, but you've been forewarned

A couple of points here I'd like to respond to, one is the evolution issue which is admittedly a bit of a sore point with me, I'm a student of the biological sciences so it's always a little disconcerting to have discussions about this in the public sphere, I guess it's also because in Australia creationism is far less common than I understand it is in the states so it's somewhat harder to really understand a creationists point of view, even after I've been discussing these issues online for years now. The other is the point on faith and its relation with science, and I'll try to deal with that point first since it has some bearing on the evolution issue. 

 

There's a few points here to pick apart, firstly I'll deal with treating science as a religion, Primarily I will point out that science admits happily and wholeheartedly that it doesn't have all the answers, indeed that's somewhat of the whole point of science, admitting we don't already know the answers and trying to find out how to discover them, now you could say this is true of religion as well, Theology isn't exactly stagnant and there are theologians poring over ancient bibles and other religious texts to try to divine new truths from them but science differs in a number of key ways, firstly in methodology, science aims to make its results repeatable and measurable, a paper isn't worth very much unless other scientists can replicate your results, theologians on the other hand may reference other theologians and indeed even come to similar ideas in their research but language, philosophy and ideals are fundamentally non-repeatable you can't force someone else to have the same epiphany as you did, the idea of a just war for instance to excuse the sins of soldiers in battle is still debated today, is it alright to kill someone in a just war? Or in defense of your own life? There are no definitive answers to these questions (Barring divine revelation, which raises it's own issues since it in turn is also non-repeatable or measurable, no one can determine who God is really talking too or what was truly meant, we must interpret everything through the lens of mans perception)

Secondly, science differs in goal, science does not ask for worship, it does not have any holy authorities, there are of course famous and well-respected scientists but none are above question or doubt, indeed the most prominent and well known research these days are attempts to disprove or at the least alter the theories of well known scientists, everyone wants to improve upon Newtons theory of gravity or prove that Einstein was wrong about relativity, and contrary to religions which typically excommunicate or otherwise expel people who question its tenets, science glorifies those who reveal that it was wrong about something, every year there's a worldwide frenzy after some scientist or other has 'discovered' something that moves faster than light. Of course so far they've all proven to be mistakes but if any of them weren't then they'd become some of the most well known researchers of the age.

But perhaps most importantly science does not ask for faith, if you doubt something in science (Something you're encouraged to do) you are perfectly capable of justifying your doubts, that's how science progresses. If scientists hadn't doubted whether light was a wave or a particle we wouldn't have discovered an entirely new realm of physics. If you question something in science you can verify it for yourself, you can take a beaker of hydrogen and put it in an oxygen-rich environment, add some energy in the form of heat and conclude that water is indeed made out of hydrogen and oxygen.

Now the issue on evolution is somewhat more complex and I know it's a point of contention in the US where I think nearly 50% of the public don't believe evolution is true so apologies for any offense caused because when discussing an issue like this I'm almost certainly going to offend someone.

The first issue is one that I almost always raise when discussing evolution and that is the matter of 'belief', no I don't believe in evolution, it's neither a religion nor an idol of mine, I would generally say that I 'accept' evolution but I can understand that that can be offensive to some as well as having comparisons drawn to say a christian 'accepting' Jesus and so is also not really a good term. The most practical term is I suppose that I 'adhere' to evolution, in the same way that I adhere to any other theory like relativity, gravitation or VSEPR theory. I understand some better than others (As I said I'm a student of biology so I understand evolution and VSEPR better than I do relativity) but I adhere to them nontheless. For the most part I'm content to accept them as they're presented, I understand some if not all of the logic and research that went into developing them and am happy to assume that the rest of the work is similarly coherent and so the theory is sound. In the case of evolution I've done far more research than any of the others, partially because it's more in my field but mostly because religion fascinates me and it's come about from having numerous discussions about religion, also partly because researching evolution in more depth is what ultimately caused me to become an atheist.

So to move briefly onto the three questions you asked about evolution I would to none of them reply that science doesn't have all the answers, to the first two I would say that evolution deals with neither of those issues, the first being a rather gross simplification of cosmology, the second a matter of abiogenesis and so while more related to evolution still not really in its purview, to the thirs I would say that I have yet to see an example for irreducible complexity, it was indeed that very issue that led to my research in evolution, I'd read Behe's work on it and was researching the irreducible complexity of the human eye which was then proven to me to be reducibly complex, as was the bombadier beetle and every other example I knew of. So if you know of any by all means mention them, it's still a question that interests me.

Anyway this post is growing rather long so I think I'll leave it here for now with perhaps an edit to come in later but if you stuck with me thus far then thanks for reading my strange ramblings on science and religion and feel free to help yourself to a cookie (Safe this time, I swear! )

 

[Guest]

Response to Voidus. Spoilered because why not? Shouldn't be anything offensive.

Alright, I made a couple mistakes in my post. First of all, I still believe that atheism and secular cosmology are religions, as they do require belief in certain fundamental tenets and require faith. They are belief systems. I believed this when I was an atheist, so.it's not just a Christian thing. See some of Dr. Michael Ruse's comments about this very topic.

But I did make a mistake in referring to what I meant (secular cosmology, abiogenesis, AND evolution) as just evolution. I can't fathom a way that the universe could have started and life could have begun without a God. And yes, I have read Hawking and other physicists. All the explanations that I have seen for the origin of the universe have been either workarounds that don't make sense or just plain impossible.

Same goes for the origin of life.

Now, my objection to evolution is more of a "I don't think that, based on the evidence, the theory of evolution is accurate" statement than a fundamental objection. I don't think God using evolution is completely outside of the realm of possibility. That said, I don't think that evolution stacks up. As for irreducible complexity, I suppose we might have to agree to disagree, though I would be interested if you will reference a specific item. You refer to Behe, so I assume that you might be referencing his flagellum theory. In which case, you probably agree with Miller's rebuttal?

Two that I have not been able to get over are the giraffe's neck, caterpillar --> butterfly metamorphosis. Also, DNA could be viewed as a system of irreducible complexity, but is also interesting in that for some reason, evolutionists view this as the only code ever that wasn't designed.

Also, evolution blatantly violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in my opinion.

[Kaymyth she/her]

I've debated for a while whether or not to respond here as this touches on a couple of sore points for me, namely the 'science is a religion/your god' point but hey, things have been kept civil so far so why not?

Spoilered for potential to get into slightly more in-depth discussion, for those not interested in potentially touchy topics go no further. Or do if you feel like it, but you've been forewarned

A couple of points here I'd like to respond to, one is the evolution issue which is admittedly a bit of a sore point with me, I'm a student of the biological sciences so it's always a little disconcerting to have discussions about this in the public sphere, I guess it's also because in Australia creationism is far less common than I understand it is in the states so it's somewhat harder to really understand a creationists point of view, even after I've been discussing these issues online for years now. The other is the point on faith and its relation with science, and I'll try to deal with that point first since it has some bearing on the evolution issue. 

 

There's a few points here to pick apart, firstly I'll deal with treating science as a religion, Primarily I will point out that science admits happily and wholeheartedly that it doesn't have all the answers, indeed that's somewhat of the whole point of science, admitting we don't already know the answers and trying to find out how to discover them, now you could say this is true of religion as well, Theology isn't exactly stagnant and there are theologians poring over ancient bibles and other religious texts to try to divine new truths from them but science differs in a number of key ways, firstly in methodology, science aims to make its results repeatable and measurable, a paper isn't worth very much unless other scientists can replicate your results, theologians on the other hand may reference other theologians and indeed even come to similar ideas in their research but language, philosophy and ideals are fundamentally non-repeatable you can't force someone else to have the same epiphany as you did, the idea of a just war for instance to excuse the sins of soldiers in battle is still debated today, is it alright to kill someone in a just war? Or in defense of your own life? There are no definitive answers to these questions (Barring divine revelation, which raises it's own issues since it in turn is also non-repeatable or measurable, no one can determine who God is really talking too or what was truly meant, we must interpret everything through the lens of mans perception)

Secondly, science differs in goal, science does not ask for worship, it does not have any holy authorities, there are of course famous and well-respected scientists but none are above question or doubt, indeed the most prominent and well known research these days are attempts to disprove or at the least alter the theories of well known scientists, everyone wants to improve upon Newtons theory of gravity or prove that Einstein was wrong about relativity, and contrary to religions which typically excommunicate or otherwise expel people who question its tenets, science glorifies those who reveal that it was wrong about something, every year there's a worldwide frenzy after some scientist or other has 'discovered' something that moves faster than light. Of course so far they've all proven to be mistakes but if any of them weren't then they'd become some of the most well known researchers of the age.

But perhaps most importantly science does not ask for faith, if you doubt something in science (Something you're encouraged to do) you are perfectly capable of justifying your doubts, that's how science progresses. If scientists hadn't doubted whether light was a wave or a particle we wouldn't have discovered an entirely new realm of physics. If you question something in science you can verify it for yourself, you can take a beaker of hydrogen and put it in an oxygen-rich environment, add some energy in the form of heat and conclude that water is indeed made out of hydrogen and oxygen.

Now the issue on evolution is somewhat more complex and I know it's a point of contention in the US where I think nearly 50% of the public don't believe evolution is true so apologies for any offense caused because when discussing an issue like this I'm almost certainly going to offend someone.

The first issue is one that I almost always raise when discussing evolution and that is the matter of 'belief', no I don't believe in evolution, it's neither a religion nor an idol of mine, I would generally say that I 'accept' evolution but I can understand that that can be offensive to some as well as having comparisons drawn to say a christian 'accepting' Jesus and so is also not really a good term. The most practical term is I suppose that I 'adhere' to evolution, in the same way that I adhere to any other theory like relativity, gravitation or VSEPR theory. I understand some better than others (As I said I'm a student of biology so I understand evolution and VSEPR better than I do relativity) but I adhere to them nontheless. For the most part I'm content to accept them as they're presented, I understand some if not all of the logic and research that went into developing them and am happy to assume that the rest of the work is similarly coherent and so the theory is sound. In the case of evolution I've done far more research than any of the others, partially because it's more in my field but mostly because religion fascinates me and it's come about from having numerous discussions about religion, also partly because researching evolution in more depth is what ultimately caused me to become an atheist.

So to move briefly onto the three questions you asked about evolution I would to none of them reply that science doesn't have all the answers, to the first two I would say that evolution deals with neither of those issues, the first being a rather gross simplification of cosmology, the second a matter of abiogenesis and so while more related to evolution still not really in its purview, to the thirs I would say that I have yet to see an example for irreducible complexity, it was indeed that very issue that led to my research in evolution, I'd read Behe's work on it and was researching the irreducible complexity of the human eye which was then proven to me to be reducibly complex, as was the bombadier beetle and every other example I knew of. So if you know of any by all means mention them, it's still a question that interests me.

Anyway this post is growing rather long so I think I'll leave it here for now with perhaps an edit to come in later but if you stuck with me thus far then thanks for reading my strange ramblings on science and religion and feel free to help yourself to a cookie (Safe this time, I swear! )

 

 

Warning!  Opinion underneath the spoiler tags!  Oh noez!

I am going to go a step further, and say that I cannot possibly believe that humans were meticulously designed.  Because I'm sorry, if the human female menstrual cycle was a deliberate choice, I would like to lodge a complaint and demand a refund.

 

Response to Voidus. Spoilered because why not? Shouldn't be anything offensive.

Alright, I made a couple mistakes in my post. First of all, I still believe that atheism and secular cosmology are religions, as they do require belief in certain fundamental tenets and require faith. They are belief systems. I believed this when I was an atheist, so.it's not just a Christian thing. See some of Dr. Michael Ruse's comments about this very topic.

But I did make a mistake in referring to what I meant (secular cosmology, abiogenesis, AND evolution) as just evolution. I can't fathom a way that the universe could have started and life could have begun without a God. And yes, I have read Hawking and other physicists. All the explanations that I have seen for the origin of the universe have been either workarounds that don't make sense or just plain impossible.

Same goes for the origin of life.

Now, my objection to evolution is more of a "I don't think that, based on the evidence, the theory of evolution is accurate" statement than a fundamental objection. I don't think God using evolution is completely outside of the realm of possibility. That said, I don't think that evolution stacks up. As for irreducible complexity, I suppose we might have to agree to disagree, though I would be interested if you will reference a specific item. You refer to Behe, so I assume that you might be referencing his flagellum theory. In which case, you probably agree with Miller's rebuttal?

Two that I have not been able to get over are the giraffe's neck, caterpillar --> butterfly metamorphosis. Also, DNA could be viewed as a system of irreducible complexity, but is also interesting in that for some reason, evolutionists view this as the only code ever that wasn't designed.

Also, evolution blatantly violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in my opinion.

 

I'm just going to address the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because that one's got an answer that a lot of people seem to miss.  It states, essentially, that in any closed system, energy will tend towards a more chaotic state.  Creating order requires an expenditure of energy, and contributes to the eventual heat death of the universe.

 

However, and this is important, Earth is not a closed system.  We are constantly being bombarded all day, every day, with vast amounts of solar energy.  This energy can thus be used to create order (i.e. evolution or other complex states of matter).

 

Basically, the sun is a giant entropy sink for us.  And someday, it's going to turn into a red giant, burn out, and explode.  That's your tending towards disorder.

[Guest]

I've debated for a while whether or not to respond here as this touches on a couple of sore points for me, namely the 'science is a religion/your god' point but hey, things have been kept civil so far so why not?

Spoilered for potential to get into slightly more in-depth discussion, for those not interested in potentially touchy topics go no further. Or do if you feel like it, but you've been forewarned

A couple of points here I'd like to respond to, one is the evolution issue which is admittedly a bit of a sore point with me, I'm a student of the biological sciences so it's always a little disconcerting to have discussions about this in the public sphere, I guess it's also because in Australia creationism is far less common than I understand it is in the states so it's somewhat harder to really understand a creationists point of view, even after I've been discussing these issues online for years now. The other is the point on faith and its relation with science, and I'll try to deal with that point first since it has some bearing on the evolution issue. 

 

There's a few points here to pick apart, firstly I'll deal with treating science as a religion, Primarily I will point out that science admits happily and wholeheartedly that it doesn't have all the answers, indeed that's somewhat of the whole point of science, admitting we don't already know the answers and trying to find out how to discover them, now you could say this is true of religion as well, Theology isn't exactly stagnant and there are theologians poring over ancient bibles and other religious texts to try to divine new truths from them but science differs in a number of key ways, firstly in methodology, science aims to make its results repeatable and measurable, a paper isn't worth very much unless other scientists can replicate your results, theologians on the other hand may reference other theologians and indeed even come to similar ideas in their research but language, philosophy and ideals are fundamentally non-repeatable you can't force someone else to have the same epiphany as you did, the idea of a just war for instance to excuse the sins of soldiers in battle is still debated today, is it alright to kill someone in a just war? Or in defense of your own life? There are no definitive answers to these questions (Barring divine revelation, which raises it's own issues since it in turn is also non-repeatable or measurable, no one can determine who God is really talking too or what was truly meant, we must interpret everything through the lens of mans perception)

Secondly, science differs in goal, science does not ask for worship, it does not have any holy authorities, there are of course famous and well-respected scientists but none are above question or doubt, indeed the most prominent and well known research these days are attempts to disprove or at the least alter the theories of well known scientists, everyone wants to improve upon Newtons theory of gravity or prove that Einstein was wrong about relativity, and contrary to religions which typically excommunicate or otherwise expel people who question its tenets, science glorifies those who reveal that it was wrong about something, every year there's a worldwide frenzy after some scientist or other has 'discovered' something that moves faster than light. Of course so far they've all proven to be mistakes but if any of them weren't then they'd become some of the most well known researchers of the age.

But perhaps most importantly science does not ask for faith, if you doubt something in science (Something you're encouraged to do) you are perfectly capable of justifying your doubts, that's how science progresses. If scientists hadn't doubted whether light was a wave or a particle we wouldn't have discovered an entirely new realm of physics. If you question something in science you can verify it for yourself, you can take a beaker of hydrogen and put it in an oxygen-rich environment, add some energy in the form of heat and conclude that water is indeed made out of hydrogen and oxygen.

Now the issue on evolution is somewhat more complex and I know it's a point of contention in the US where I think nearly 50% of the public don't believe evolution is true so apologies for any offense caused because when discussing an issue like this I'm almost certainly going to offend someone.

The first issue is one that I almost always raise when discussing evolution and that is the matter of 'belief', no I don't believe in evolution, it's neither a religion nor an idol of mine, I would generally say that I 'accept' evolution but I can understand that that can be offensive to some as well as having comparisons drawn to say a christian 'accepting' Jesus and so is also not really a good term. The most practical term is I suppose that I 'adhere' to evolution, in the same way that I adhere to any other theory like relativity, gravitation or VSEPR theory. I understand some better than others (As I said I'm a student of biology so I understand evolution and VSEPR better than I do relativity) but I adhere to them nontheless. For the most part I'm content to accept them as they're presented, I understand some if not all of the logic and research that went into developing them and am happy to assume that the rest of the work is similarly coherent and so the theory is sound. In the case of evolution I've done far more research than any of the others, partially because it's more in my field but mostly because religion fascinates me and it's come about from having numerous discussions about religion, also partly because researching evolution in more depth is what ultimately caused me to become an atheist.

So to move briefly onto the three questions you asked about evolution I would to none of them reply that science doesn't have all the answers, to the first two I would say that evolution deals with neither of those issues, the first being a rather gross simplification of cosmology, the second a matter of abiogenesis and so while more related to evolution still not really in its purview, to the thirs I would say that I have yet to see an example for irreducible complexity, it was indeed that very issue that led to my research in evolution, I'd read Behe's work on it and was researching the irreducible complexity of the human eye which was then proven to me to be reducibly complex, as was the bombadier beetle and every other example I knew of. So if you know of any by all means mention them, it's still a question that interests me.

Anyway this post is growing rather long so I think I'll leave it here for now with perhaps an edit to come in later but if you stuck with me thus far then thanks for reading my strange ramblings on science and religion and feel free to help yourself to a cookie (Safe this time, I swear! )

 

 

If 50% of the US citizen believes in creationism, then this is great news to me as well... I have always regarded the movement as a rather minor one and highly localized or so are we being told across the border. Over here, it drops to 0%. Honestly, it is not even something we discuss in Quebec. 

 

No offense meant to anyone. 

[+Slowswift]

Real quick, I wanted to drop in and say in a possibly more appropriate thread...

 

Two apostles have died in the last six months. Elder L Tom Perry and President Boyd K Packer.

 

They'll be missed, for sure. 

Meanwhile they're probably throwing a "welcome back" up in Heaven right now.

[ThirdGen]

(checks for apartments in Montreal)

[Guest]

@maxal

That's probably because the overwhelming majority of people who believe in creationism are scared of voicing their opinions, due to the culture of accepting evolutionary theory. And many don't have any good arguments besides "Because the Bible," to be honest. It's sad to me how many people don't research the issues themselves before expressing their opinions. A lot of creationists came by creationism after becoming Christians, I think. It was a completely reversed process for me...

@Kaymyth

Good point, and I don't even know why I brought that up, because I've heard it debunked so many times. Silly me

Edited July 6, 2015 by Guest

[Kaymyth she/her]

(checks for apartments in Montreal)

 

Oh, no you don't.  You leave KC, and all of my plans for a steampunk band go kaput.  You're gonna stay here and suffer with the rest of us, mister.

[Guest]

(checks for apartments in Montreal)

 

Sure, the more the merrier  , but the question that matters the most should be: How do you feel about winter? 

 

 

@maxal

That's probably because the overwhelming majority of people who believe in creationism are scared of voicing their opinions, due to the culture of accepting evolutionary theory. And many don't have any good arguments besides "Because the Bible," to be honest. It's sad to me how many people don't research the issues themselves before expressing their opinions. A lot of creationists came by creationism after becoming Christians, I think. It was a completely reversed process for me...

 

Thanks for explaining. As I said, these are not conversations we have over here. Religions are not strong here (no matter which one) nor do they take much media space (in fact they take basically none). It perhaps give us a wrong sense on how important these discussions can be elsewhere.

 

By here, I mean the province of Quebec, more specifically in the region of Montreal, not necessarily elsewhere in Canada. 

[little wilson she/her]

Two apostles have died in the last six months. Elder L Tom Perry and President Boyd K Packer.

Meanwhile they're probably throwing a "welcome back" up in Heaven right now.

 

Almost within a month of each other, actually. Reminds me of when Neal A Maxwell and David B Haight passed away 11 days apart.

 

 

As for the current conversation on evolution. I used to be a Creationist, but that's because I didn't really know much about evolution. Then, in (quite strangely) a geology class at BYU-Idaho, my personal beliefs went to more of a mix of the two. The LDS church doesn't have any stance on evolution: some apostles have believed evolution is a fact, and others have said that it's absolutely not, but the Church as a whole has no doctrine about it. So it's up to the members to decide for ourselves (not that we wouldn't have that ability if they did have a stance).

 

My personal beliefs on it are thus: God exists and he set things in motion, by laying down the laws for life and everything else. I believe that mankind as we know it started with Adam and Eve, but that there were pre-Adamites. Science says that there were. How I reconcile it is in terms of our spirits. The scriptures, in various places both in the Bible and more particularly, the Pearl of Great Price (an LDS book of scripture), talk about how God waited after creating something until it obeyed. I use the definition of "obey" that's "behaving in accordance to" which that particular definition has been ascribed to the universe as a whole, and I think the meaning here is the same. I think it's referring to evolution as a law. Life adapting until it's the way it should be. The scriptures continue by saying that God gave man a gift or a blessing, depending on the scripture. I think that gift was our spirit. I don't think Pre-Adamites didn't had that. Adam and Eve were given it, and that's what started the human race as we know it.

 

Or at least, that's what I believe. And it fits mostly with both scripture and science, and I think that's what truth needs to do. Science and religion aren't separate, and truth isn't more applicable to one than the other. Real truth fits with both, I think.

[Voidus]

Response to Voidus. Spoilered because why not? Shouldn't be anything offensive.

Alright, I made a couple mistakes in my post. First of all, I still believe that atheism and secular cosmology are religions, as they do require belief in certain fundamental tenets and require faith. They are belief systems. I believed this when I was an atheist, so.it's not just a Christian thing. See some of Dr. Michael Ruse's comments about this very topic.

But I did make a mistake in referring to what I meant (secular cosmology, abiogenesis, AND evolution) as just evolution. I can't fathom a way that the universe could have started and life could have begun without a God. And yes, I have read Hawking and other physicists. All the explanations that I have seen for the origin of the universe have been either workarounds that don't make sense or just plain impossible.

Same goes for the origin of life.

Now, my objection to evolution is more of a "I don't think that, based on the evidence, the theory of evolution is accurate" statement than a fundamental objection. I don't think God using evolution is completely outside of the realm of possibility. That said, I don't think that evolution stacks up. As for irreducible complexity, I suppose we might have to agree to disagree, though I would be interested if you will reference a specific item. You refer to Behe, so I assume that you might be referencing his flagellum theory. In which case, you probably agree with Miller's rebuttal?

Two that I have not been able to get over are the giraffe's neck, caterpillar --> butterfly metamorphosis. Also, DNA could be viewed as a system of irreducible complexity, but is also interesting in that for some reason, evolutionists view this as the only code ever that wasn't designed.

Also, evolution blatantly violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in my opinion.

I don't really have much to add here after Kaymyth's correction on the thermodynamics issue, if you're not convinced by it that's fine by me, I've yet to see papers that sucesfully refute either and I've seen enough work on both cosmology and abiogenesis to think that while we may not have a perfect answer to either that it's close enough given the resources we have. (We don't have a billion years and several trillion planets to play around with to search for abiogenesis)

The issue of being the only code that wasn't designed is a complicated one, it's really more of a linguists field than anything, it ultimately depends how you define a code, study enough of the chemistry underlying DNA and lines start to blur a bit, but again, linguistics and philosophy are not really my fields so I could certainly be wrong.

On the atheism is a religion front, it's a common assertion and one which I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with but it's ultimately a matter of semantics, I would point out that if you define atheism as a religion then you must have a relatively broad definition of a religion since atheism has no leader, no fundamental tenets other than not believing in any gods and no belief in the supernatural, but if that does fall under your definition of a religion then that's fine I guess.

[Aonar he/him]

First off, I know it's probably getting a little old, but I'm pretty sure this is one of the only sites on the internet where this many different people with different beliefs can have a calm, thoughtful discussion about religion. (And for over eight straight pages too.) Which is pretty awesome.

 

 

 

 

Almost within a month of each other, actually. Reminds me of when Neal A Maxwell and David B Haight passed away 11 days apart.

 

 

As for the current conversation on evolution. I used to be a Creationist, but that's because I didn't really know much about evolution. Then, in (quite strangely) a geology class at BYU-Idaho, my personal beliefs went to more of a mix of the two. The LDS church doesn't have any stance on evolution: some apostles have believed evolution is a fact, and others have said that it's absolutely not, but the Church as a whole has no doctrine about it. So it's up to the members to decide for ourselves (not that we wouldn't have that ability if they did have a stance).

 

My personal beliefs on it are thus: God exists and he set things in motion, by laying down the laws for life and everything else. I believe that mankind as we know it started with Adam and Eve, but that there were pre-Adamites. Science says that there were. How I reconcile it is in terms of our spirits. The scriptures, in various places both in the Bible and more particularly, the Pearl of Great Price (an LDS book of scripture), talk about how God waited after creating something until it obeyed. I use the definition of "obey" that's "behaving in accordance to" which that particular definition has been ascribed to the universe as a whole, and I think the meaning here is the same. I think it's referring to evolution as a law. Life adapting until it's the way it should be. The scriptures continue by saying that God gave man a gift or a blessing, depending on the scripture. I think that gift was our spirit. I don't think Pre-Adamites didn't had that. Adam and Eve were given it, and that's what started the human race as we know it.

 

Or at least, that's what I believe. And it fits mostly with both scripture and science, and I think that's what truth needs to do. Science and religion aren't separate, and truth isn't more applicable to one than the other. Real truth fits with both, I think.

 

 

^Pretty much sums up my personal views on the subject, with a few little differences here and there. I've never found anything in my religion (I'm also a Mormon, if you were wondering) that contradicts what I understand of science (even though I know plenty of people who'll argue with me on that) so I see no reason to deny the logical truths present in evolution and other scientific models, even things abiogenisis. They make sense, given what we know about the world around us. So who is to say they weren't the tools God used to create this universe, and the life we see in it? If He created the rules by which this universe works, why would He not work within them? 

 

I guess what I'm saying is that while I'm perfectly willing to believe in a God that requires a certain measure of faith and agency from His children, I'm not willing to believe in one that would purposefully mislead them. I've found nothing in my faith that contradicts evolution and with the wealth of evidence backing it up, I don't really have a problem with it, and never have before. 

 

[/random two cents on religion] Please don't kill me. : P If this is construed as offensive in any way to anyone, trust me, it is not how I meant it, and you have my deepest apologies.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Aonar Faileas

[Voidus]

First off, I know it's probably getting a little old, but I'm pretty sure this is one of the only sites on the internet where this many different people with different beliefs can have a calm, thoughtful discussion about religion. (And for over eight straight pages too.) Which is pretty awesome.

I fully expect the internet to explode any minute now

[navybrandt he/him]

Considering I'm non-denominational and currently attending an Anglican church, I find neither "Catholic" nor "Protestant" are particularly all-encompassing for Christian Sharders. Might I meekly suggest replacing them with a single "Christian" option?

Glad that the umbrella-term Christian was added. There are a LOT of comments that I'm biting my tongue and ignoring in the interest of keeping it civil. I also know that simply sharing my beliefs or pointing out disagreements is unlikely to change anyone's mind. There are a lot of different doctrines but it all boils down to one essential truth - salvation. I have found that when it comes to different "Christian" denominations, people can be grouped into two categories.

 

The first (which I fall into) says that salvation (or the eventual condition of our soul) hinges 100% on a faith in Jesus Christ. We can't earn it in any way; it is a free gift to be either accepted or rejected. Anything added to or taken away from that is not salvation. If you hold to this basic view, I'm not going to split hairs on any other doctrine (slightly more detail in the spoiler tag).

 

Every human is a sinner from birth and by choice (Romans 3:23). As a result of that sin we are damned to spend eternity in a place of ultimate torment called hell (Romans 6:23; Revelation 20:14). That the perfect Son of God, Jesus Christ, lived a sinless life and took our punishment upon himself when he died on the cross (Hebrews 4:15, Romans 5:8). That he conquered death and rose from the grave in three days (Romans 8:34; Luke 24:6-7). And if we accept this gift-of-God by believing on Jesus, we are spared our punishment and will instead spend eternity in heaven with him (John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10). Finally, this free gift cannot be earned, worked-for, or deserved – only accepted or rejected (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).

 

The second group says that salvation must be earned or worked for in some way however small. This could be taking some sacrament like communion or baptism (both good things but that aren't necessary for salvation according to my group), or it could be a need to live a good life and hope you make it. There are many other works that people believe are necessary for salvation that take away from the complete work of Jesus Christ. It is with great dread that I say this, but I believe that those that add to or take away from faith in Jesus are, in fact, not saved.

 

I know I'm greatly simplifying matters, but it really is a simple thing that any child who's old enough to know right from wrong should be able to understand. I'm also sharing what I believe and recognize your right to believe differently (at least in this life). Is it narrow-minded? Yeah! It's what I believe though. I'd be glad to debate/share/discuss in private PM's if you really feel the need to talk/vent/insult/agree or whatever.

[Blaze1616 he/him]

Noticed the evolution discussion going on, figured I'd drop this article in here. It's obviously written by atheists, but I didn't feel they were pushing the territory of hathiests (hate-theists), so I don't think is should offend anyone, but if it does, my apologies.

 

Anyways, this popped up on my Book of Faces feed and I enjoyed reading it. I find it amusing that it addresses some of the issues you brought up, Kipper. Anyways, enjoy the read. 

 

Here you go!

[Voidus]

Noticed the evolution discussion going on, figured I'd drop this article in here. It's obviously written by atheists, but I didn't feel they were pushing the territory of hathiests (hate-theists), so I don't think is should offend anyone, but if it does, my apologies.

 

Anyways, this popped up on my Book of Faces feed and I enjoyed reading it. I find it amusing that it addresses some of the issues you brought up, Kipper. Anyways, enjoy the read. 

 

Here you go!

This term is doing a number on my spelling OCD*, I'm not sure if I like the fact that it's spelled the way that phonetically it really should be spelled or if I hate that it differs from the obvious root word in spelling.   

*Note: I do not have OCD. I've checked. 17 times. I prevent myself from catching it by always washing my hands an even number of times.

[Blaze1616 he/him]

This term is doing a number on my spelling OCD*, I'm not sure if I like the fact that it's spelled the way that phonetically it really should be spelled or if I hate that it differs from the obvious root word in spelling.   

*Note: I do not have OCD. I've checked. 17 times. I prevent myself from catching it by always washing my hands an even number of times.

 

My apologies, it's a personal spelling for a term I coined when discussing the new wave of r/atheist-attitudes toward religion with my Religions In Society professor a few years ago. Any similarities to terms currently used by the populace are completely coincidental, I'm not hip enough to be trend-setting.

[little wilson she/her]

Glad that the umbrella-term Christian was added. There are a LOT of comments that I'm biting my tongue and ignoring in the interest of keeping it civil. I also know that simply sharing my beliefs or pointing out disagreements is unlikely to change anyone's mind. There are a lot of different doctrines but it all boils down to one essential truth - salvation. I have found that when it comes to different "Christian" denominations, people can be grouped into two categories.

 

The first (which I fall into) says that salvation (or the eventual condition of our soul) hinges 100% on a faith in Jesus Christ. We can't earn it in any way; it is a free gift to be either accepted or rejected. Anything added to or taken away from that is not salvation. If you hold to this basic view, I'm not going to split hairs on any other doctrine (slightly more detail in the spoiler tag).

 

Every human is a sinner from birth and by choice (Romans 3:23). As a result of that sin we are damned to spend eternity in a place of ultimate torment called hell (Romans 6:23; Revelation 20:14). That the perfect Son of God, Jesus Christ, lived a sinless life and took our punishment upon himself when he died on the cross (Hebrews 4:15, Romans 5:8). That he conquered death and rose from the grave in three days (Romans 8:34; Luke 24:6-7). And if we accept this gift-of-God by believing on Jesus, we are spared our punishment and will instead spend eternity in heaven with him (John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10). Finally, this free gift cannot be earned, worked-for, or deserved – only accepted or rejected (Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).

 

The second group says that salvation must be earned or worked for in some way however small. This could be taking some sacrament like communion or baptism (both good things but that aren't necessary for salvation according to my group), or it could be a need to live a good life and hope you make it. There are many other works that people believe are necessary for salvation that take away from the complete work of Jesus Christ. It is with great dread that I say this, but I believe that those that add to or take away from faith in Jesus are, in fact, not saved.

 

I know I'm greatly simplifying matters, but it really is a simple thing that any child who's old enough to know right from wrong should be able to understand. I'm also sharing what I believe and recognize your right to believe differently (at least in this life). Is it narrow-minded? Yeah! It's what I believe though. I'd be glad to debate/share/discuss in private PM's if you really feel the need to talk/vent/insult/agree or whatever.

 

I'm actually curious about this view. While I'm quoting you here, this is more just an open comment/question to anyone reading this who shares the same view about pure faith, no works.

 

I'm a staunch believer of faith requiring action and works, since I believe that faith is an action word. In James 2:17, it says that faith without works is dead. Christ taught people to follow him, not just in belief, but in action, and to live like him. Or at least, that's what I believe. Because of this, I don't quite understand the "all you need is faith" side of things, and I'd like to fix that.

 

I guess my lack of understanding might stem from a misconception, so I'm just going to explain how the "pure faith" side looks to me, and then you all can correct me as you see fit. I want to be clear that I'm not trying to offend anyone with this; I'm just trying to understand a viewpoint that I've never understood before--mostly because I've rarely been around people who have this view, and when I have, the atmosphere hasn't been reasonable enough to discuss it in an non-inflammatory way. As this topic has been incredibly civil thus far and everyone seems to be trying their hardest to keep it as such, I'd like to actually finally understand this.

 

My first comment is about how anyone can say they believe something. Simply saying "I believe in Christ" doesn't mean that one actually believes in Christ. This point is probably addressed through the intent of the person, since God knows what people truly believe, but I just want to make sure that's the case, since I could easily be wrong.

 

Second, it seems a little strange to me that someone like Hitler could profess a belief in Christ and be saved through that belief but someone like Gandhi couldn't be saved unless they professed a belief in Christ.

 

And third, what about all the people who never had a chance to even hear about Christ? There are billions of people who lived before Christ and after Christ, who weren't in parts of the world were Christianity was practiced, and those people would've lived their entire lives without ever having heard the name of Christ. I can't believe that a loving God wouldn't let those people be saved simply because they were born in the wrong time and/or the wrong place.

 

Again, none of these points are meant to offend, and if I worded any of them in a way that was taken offensively, I apologize. I'm just trying to state my thoughts on it so the people who believe in faith without works can respond appropriately to them. I have no doubt that you've all heard these arguments before and that you have responses to them. I just want to understand your side of things better, since it's a view that I'm unfamiliar with.

[Orlion Blight he/him]

I'm actually curious about this view. While I'm quoting you here, this is more just an open comment/question to anyone reading this who shares the same view about pure faith, no works.

 

I'm a staunch believer of faith requiring action and works, since I believe that faith is an action word. In James 2:17, it says that faith without works is dead. Christ taught people to follow him, not just in belief, but in action, and to live like him. Or at least, that's what I believe. Because of this, I don't quite understand the "all you need is faith" side of things, and I'd like to fix that.

 

 

Think about it like this: Man is incapable of bringing about his own salvation. No matter what you do, no matter how many good works or religious rituals or sacrifices you add to your spiritual resume, you will be found wanting in Judgement and cast out. This is a principle most Christians have because it is the reason for Christ's sacrifice.

 

It is through the grace of God/Christ that individuals can be and are saved. Remember the principle I just stated: being Gandhi is fine but works do not bring about salvation, but the grace of God/Christ through the Cross (with a capital 'C'). You get this grace by being chosen by God and accepting it. That's it. If works could save, then not only would there be no need for the Crucifixion, but you would be compelling God, by your actions, to save you. This brings a host of problems and calls into question God's omnipotence (if you can compel God to bless you or save you through mere ritual or action, you "set yourself up above God").

 

So, in the end what matters is that God saves you. That's it. The reason does not matter because you can not know why He chooses you (otherwise you could game the system) and all you can really have is faith that God is just and that he can bring about your salvation.

[ThirdGen]

Jesus was five men from Wiltshire, best known for the song "Right Here, Right Now."

 

Err, wait, that was Jesus Jones.

 

Jesus was six men from Texas who were mostly active in the 90's...

[Silverblade5 he/him]

I'm actually curious about this view. While I'm quoting you here, this is more just an open comment/question to anyone reading this who shares the same view about pure faith, no works.

I'm a staunch believer of faith requiring action and works, since I believe that faith is an action word. In James 2:17, it says that faith without works is dead. Christ taught people to follow him, not just in belief, but in action, and to live like him. Or at least, that's what I believe. Because of this, I don't quite understand the "all you need is faith" side of things, and I'd like to fix that.

I guess my lack of understanding might stem from a misconception, so I'm just going to explain how the "pure faith" side looks to me, and then you all can correct me as you see fit. I want to be clear that I'm not trying to offend anyone with this; I'm just trying to understand a viewpoint that I've never understood before--mostly because I've rarely been around people who have this view, and when I have, the atmosphere hasn't been reasonable enough to discuss it in an non-inflammatory way. As this topic has been incredibly civil thus far and everyone seems to be trying their hardest to keep it as such, I'd like to actually finally understand this.

My first comment is about how anyone can say they believe something. Simply saying "I believe in Christ" doesn't mean that one actually believes in Christ. This point is probably addressed through the intent of the person, since God knows what people truly believe, but I just want to make sure that's the case, since I could easily be wrong.

Second, it seems a little strange to me that someone like Hitler could profess a belief in Christ and be saved through that belief but someone like Gandhi couldn't be saved unless they professed a belief in Christ.

And third, what about all the people who never had a chance to even hear about Christ? There are billions of people who lived before Christ and after Christ, who weren't in parts of the world were Christianity was practiced, and those people would've lived their entire lives without ever having heard the name of Christ. I can't believe that a loving God wouldn't let those people be saved simply because they were born in the wrong time and/or the wrong place.

Again, none of these points are meant to offend, and if I worded any of them in a way that was taken offensively, I apologize. I'm just trying to state my thoughts on it so the people who believe in faith without works can respond appropriately to them. I have no doubt that you've all heard these arguments before and that you have responses to them. I just want to understand your side of things better, since it's a view that I'm unfamiliar with.

In a nutshell, your actions reflect what you truly believe. If you say you believe, then proceed to murdur millions of people, then you don't truly believe. You only have lip service.

Secondly, God does know this, and that's why, after his resurrection Jesus tasked the apostles with spreading the good news so that they might be saved.

[navybrandt he/him]

I will try to address your questions. These are my personal beliefs and no offense is meant to any group.

To quote from the same chapter you used, James 2:19 says, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." So, just believing that God exists and going about your life isn't salvation. Salvation is not just a prayer that you say like some magic get-into-heaven spell. So, yes, when a person gets saved, they decide to become a follower of Christ. The point is that no amount of works or being a good-enough-follower is enough. I still sin every day even though I try to live a good life.

Where there is a problem is when you say that a certain amount sin (or a certain specific sin) will make you lose your salvation or a certain lack of action will keep you out of heaven. Salvation is in Jesus; It's not in Jesus + works. For example, some Christians say you're not really saved unless you go to church. Well, I have a big problem with that as the Bible never says to go to church for your salvation (no offense if that's what you believe). Another example is baptism. We're supposed to get baptized after we get saved, but not everyone can do that or is even willing. Salvation, however, is not Jesus + baptism. It's Jesus alone, so if you never get baptized, you're still saved. Another example is with homosexuality. Some Christians say that homosexuals won't go to heaven. Well, I have a big problem with that too as Jesus died for all people and for all sins. Jesus loves homosexuals and straights equally, and I'm supposed to show that love too. Who am I to say who is good enough? I'm certainly no paragon of perfection.

In God's eyes, we all fall short. So, yes Gandhi and Hitler both fall short of perfection. I might say one falls more short than the other, but we're all sinners. I fall short and you fall short too. Could Hitler have gotten saved at the last minute? Technically, yes - even though I doubt that it happened. But Jesus can save someone like Gandhi and someone like Hitler too. Sin is sin - from the smallest lie to murder or rape or genocide. We all fall short.

As far as people that have never heard the Gospel, I don't have a good answer for that. There are plenty of internet sites that attempt to explain it, and even as a Christian, I find them unfulfilling. I know God is perfect and holy and just, so I just have faith that He'll do the right thing. The church is commanded to spread the Gospel to the world (Matthew 28:19), so the failing is on us - not God.

Edit: spelling and grammar

Edit #2: The good news is that you don't need all the answers to be a Christian.

Edited July 6, 2015 by navybrandt