Question for Christians.

[Fourbanger]

I'll admit that I don't have a full understanding of the science behind evolution. But the reason I trust in science over religion is because it can become outdated. Science constantly changes as we learn more about our world. We wouldn't look back to 2000 year old scientific documents and attempt to apply them directly to today's world without at least taking a critical and objective look at them.

People say things like "it's just a theory" or "we used to think the world was flat" when trying to discredit science, but this actually strengthens my belief in it. We don't claim to know everything with 100% certainty, and when new information comes to light we integrate it with what we already know.

[cmybimmer]

You're saying here that God put us into existence so we could worship him?

"And I did not create the jinn [jinni] and humans except that they worship Me." (Holy Quran 51:56)

Yes, and Allah is saying this as well.

[Lodsin]

The time modern humans have been on Earth account for mere fractions of a spec of dust on the global time line. Life has been said to have started from over 3 billion years ago. Ignorance is not being humbled by those statistics and the fact that our complexity could of come from something simplistic (and still pretty complex in its own rights).

Then again never mind because you, as a subscriber to religion, can't believe in what I'm telling you. At least this is to the other people.

This.

Anddd

I'll admit that I don't have a full understanding of the science behind evolution. But the reason I trust in science over religion is because it can become outdated. Science constantly changes as we learn more about our world. We wouldn't look back to 2000 year old scientific documents and attempt to apply them directly to today's world without at least taking a critical and objective look at them.

People say things like "it's just a theory" or "we used to think the world was flat" when trying to discredit science, but this actually strengthens my belief in it. We don't claim to know everything with 100% certainty, and when new information comes to light we integrate it with what we already know.

I'm a pastafarian, my god is a flying ball of spaghetti.

[Fusion]

It is becoming a known fact that we knew the world was round way before Galilei or any other modern astronomers, proven ie. by the Great Pyramid. Science, maths, physics were obviously known way before the bible was written. Problem is that ancient history today is taught to "accomodate" the bible in certain ways. Therefor, if major historical truths were shifted by new facts, religions would be asked to explain. Since religion cannot shift historical events (because otherwise they'd be proven to be false), religion shuns science, genetic engineering etc.
Science is a threat to religion in that it could undermine it, whereas religion can only attempt to undermine science. Science is a threat because one scientific answer leads to many questions. Concrete questions are not welcome in religion, because the founding books don't allow them to be answered. Only psychological questions are happily answered, because they can be answered very generally and vaguely.

[cale]

We don't have to be physically the best creation (which is also a big miracle itself... The complexity/functioning of our bodies are enough to believe in Gods presence. To think we just happened to shape into our bodies from thin air is ignorance in my opinion), but like mentioned before we are valued as a creation for our worship to God on our own free will. Angels for example are created ONLY for the worship of God, with no other purpose for their lives..

Someone throw me a life vest, I'm drowning in ignorance with this post.

Implying that the complex arrangements found in our bodies happened from thin air or even in a short period of time reassures me in my assumption that you are wilfully ignorant to science and evolution.

And yes, physically we may be lacking amongst other creations, but you don't see dogs prostrating to God such as (some) humans. That's why we are labeled the best of creation.. If you're not impressed, then by all means, one-up Him.

Really, that's your argument....that our level of intelligence is proof of a deity? With that "sound" logic should we not say that the higher than average intelligence found in dolphins and chimpanzee's is proof of a slightly less competent god than that which created us? This is similar to the argument that our existence in such a inhospitable universe is proof of creation, but it's not.

You could have a billion-sided die, you roll it and it just so happens that 498,238,191 is rolled. Does that side credit some omnipotent rolling force for allowing it be the chosen side? Of course it does not, the odds were against it yes but one side HAD to come up. The by-products of that are not special, they are simply the end result of a force which had already occurred. We're also comprised solely of the exact same elements which have been around for billions of years, billions of years for those elements to interact, change and formulate more complex arrangements. Any arrangement possible was equally unlikely and if came into existence would be in shock and awe at the unlikliness of it's existence....but again, it's just the end result of a process which had to occur due to forces in the past.

[devon.818]

We don't have to be physically the best creation (which is also a big miracle itself... The complexity/functioning of our bodies are enough to believe in Gods presence. To think we just happened to shape into our bodies from thin air is ignorance in my opinion), but like mentioned before we are valued as a creation for our worship to God on our own free will. Angels for example are created ONLY for the worship of God, with no other purpose for their lives..

And yes, physically we may be lacking amongst other creations, but you don't see dogs prostrating to God such as (some) humans. That's why we are labeled the best of creation.. If you're not impressed, then by all means, one-up Him.

thanks for calling us creations, my mom and dad did a lot of humping to create me :)

anyway, saying that we are so complex we should believe in god or you think it was an accident, is pretty...well yeah ignorant. we are this complex because it works, it didn't happen over night, the right mixture of vital systems came into play and over millenia merged together, advancing and getting better to become human. accident? no no no, everything is this way because it HAS TO BE.

[FunfGan]

thanks for calling us creations, my mom and dad did a lot of humping to create me :)

anyway, saying that we are so complex we should believe in god or you think it was an accident, is pretty...well yeah ignorant. we are this complex because it works, it didn't happen over night, the right mixture of vital systems came into play and over millenia merged together, advancing and getting better to become human. accident? no no no, everything is this way because it HAS TO BE.

So who do you think started all that?

[cmybimmer]

Someone throw me a life vest, I'm drowning in ignorance with this post.

Implying that the complex arrangements found in our bodies happened from thin air or even in a short period of time reassures me in my assumption that you are wilfully ignorant to science and evolution.

Not at all, I love science. I see it as a way to demonstrate God's might..

I'm not here to cause e-battles that aren't going to go anywhere, especially when claims on here seem to open windows for people to take shots at each other.

[devon.818]

So who do you think started all that?

who started it? uhm i dont think it was "started" really, i am talking about evolution, kinda rules out a devine creator of sorts.
but thats just what i choose to believe in.

i respect everyone's views, as i feel people respect mine.

that said, doesn't the bible speak of adam and eve? so if you belive "god" created the world and people evolved, how does adam and eve fit in? and who did adam or eve tell that was able to right all this down?

[Fusion]

I'm more interested in why religion can't acknowledge that it can't answer certain things.
A typical religious answer is "If you have to ask that question, you're not worthy of the answer, because if you were, you'd know the answer."
On the other hand, scientists aren't afraid to say "We don't know, but we are working on answering that question."

The funny thing is that a religious answer like that is a deadly sin

In almost every list, pride (Latin, superbia), or hubris, is considered the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins, and the source of the others. It is identified as a desire to be more important or attractive than others, failing to acknowledge the good work of others, and excessive love of self (especially holding self out of proper position toward God).

[Fourbanger]

You could have a billion-sided die, you roll it and it just so happens that 498,238,191 is rolled. Does that side credit some omnipotent rolling force for allowing it be the chosen side? Of course it does not, the odds were against it yes but one side HAD to come up. The by-products of that are not special, they are simply the end result of a force which had already occurred. We're also comprised solely of the exact same elements which have been around for billions of years, billions of years for those elements to interact, change and formulate more complex arrangements. Any arrangement possible was equally unlikely and if came into existence would be in shock and awe at the unlikliness of it's existence....but again, it's just the end result of a process which had to occur due to forces in the past.

Very nicely put

[smooth]

On the other hand, scientists aren't afraid to say "We don't know, but we are working on answering that question."

I'm not sure where you are in your education, but once or if you spend a lot of time around scientists you'll find they aren't so endearing or transparent as it seems. I don't know if people just assume scientists are fact driven and let the facts speak for themselves, but they don't and are often more zealous than even the most fervent religious fanatics I've encountered.

At best you might find someone honest to point out that science never proves, merely disproves, perhaps in a methodology course, but elsewhere people believe and act as if their discipline has the answers and that the person him or herself is the expert to listen to.

I'm not here to cause e-battles that aren't going to go anywhere, especially when claims on here seem to open windows for people to take shots at each other.

It's a strange interaction when people ask for your opinion and then personally insult you when you give it.

[mar1t1me]

We don't have to be physically the best creation (which is also a big miracle itself... The complexity/functioning of our bodies are enough to believe in Gods presence. To think we just happened to shape into our bodies from thin air is ignorance in my opinion), but like mentioned before we are valued as a creation for our worship to God on our own free will. Angels for example are created ONLY for the worship of God, with no other purpose for their lives..

And yes, physically we may be lacking amongst other creations, but you don't see dogs prostrating to God such as (some) humans. That's why we are labeled the best of creation.. If you're not impressed, then by all means, one-up Him.

No scientist has ever put forth the notion that we were created out of thin air. They leave that to the slavish believers of myth, who I would agree, display ignorance in their assertions that an invisible "god" created everything.

One-up billions of years of development? Nope. How about you explain why the genomes of ALL life on Earth are so amazingly similar. And "because my god made it that way" won't cut it. And I'm sure science would love to interview an angel, but so far, no one has been able to locate one. That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed as easily.

So you think Human nature alone would put us off better w/ out religion? Honestly. Look at the ghetto's and places where religion is just lacking. Are they more peaceful, better people? No. Nobody can even reason that religion is the cause of pain. Take any of the crusades for example, they were purely human error in the name of religion. Now, Islam preaches violence in the name of Allah, but thats not what I'm talking about. Human error is what accounts for much of the useless violence in Christian history. Thats not even beginning to look at all the other religions, or those who persecute AGAINST Christians, and are killing them for their belief.

Let's look at that another way. Has religion ever been shown to stabilize society on its own merits, without its use as a potent threat? Look at the sectarian violence in many parts of the world that rage on for decades. The Nigerians and their burning of children as witches...something happening here in the 21st century, borne of rampant Christian superstition cloaked as "God's Will". Look at the various turf squabbles over supposedly "holy" lands. Look at the desire, and even, in fact, need for religions throughout history to violently quash the seeds of free-thought and free expression. Martin Luther himself, the father of Protestantism said "reason is the Devil's Harlot". The problem in the ghettos of the world cannot and will not be solved by religion, no more than secular humanism caused them. Human error? I've heard it said that "in the absence of religion you will observe good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. But to make good people do truly horrifying things absolutely requires religion."

It comes down to this: either you believe that every word of the Bible (or Q'uran which is loosely derived from the same hand-me-down texts) is God's own, including the consent to own slaves, rape and torture of women and children, and all the other trappings of a manifestation of human-desired power over others, or you don't. And if you don't believe God hates it when you wear fabric blends (Lev.19:19) or moving to the NT, don't believe Jesus commanded believers to sell all their possessions, give the money to the poor, and preach the gospel.(Matt. 19:21), then how can you claim to be a true believer? Aren't you just another lukewarm soul who can't commit himself to trust in his particular favorite all-powerful invisible deity?

[smooth]

Those quotes from Luther in regards to reason are taken out of context. His writing on reason is referencing religious people trying to reason and/or obtain salvation through their own means (works) whereas Luther's belief, which would become Lutheran doctrine, is that salvation is by grace alone.

Remember that Luther is a Catholic who is writing to the church about what he sees the church doing wrong according to his understanding of the bible. He's not talking to non-believers. There was not the current science vs. religion paradigm when he was writing, no atheism as we know it now, and people capable of reading and writing would have been part of an established religion.

He's writing to the papacy about in ineffectiveness of its human reasoning not writing to the masses that they shouldn't think for themselves. His eventual break from the church actually opened the doors for the masses to gain control over their own ability to talk directly to a deity (instead of relying on the priest classes as had been the case previously) and to read a common language religious text (contrary to services conducted in latin).

The reformation was an example of what you'd like to see, people breaking from dogma and thinking for themselves and eventually stabilizing their communities, so Luther is an example of the opposite of what you're using his behavior and writing to indicate.

[devon.818]

wait, funfgan is saying religion is good for humanity and helps societies? so how do you explain all those crusades in the name of the catholic church? they killed all those people to help them? being dead was better for them being non-catholics? oh thats rights, the catholic church knows whats best for everyone instead of people knowing whats best for themselves, forgot.