Creationism vs. Evolution

Blind faith... All because our parents and fellow church-goers and clergy "says it's so". It's like being brought up in a Dallas Cowboys household... the kids are almost guaranteed to be Cowboys fans because it's the example they see. Sorry, I'm not going to believe in something just because someone else told me to. Let's be sure to just "believe" and not question anything... Gallileo would disagree and we'd also still be living on a flat planet.

Anthropology 101 teaches us the definition of religion as "a set of rules and doctrine created by a culture to make that culture feel better about the unknown". Religion is just a side effect of not knowing what's really out there. It's a set of rules created by cultures to "keep us in line" and give us moral rules with consequences. It gives us a reason to punish those not like us, and those we think are doing wrong to the rest of us.

I don't believe that current christian doctrines are how it really all happened. The timelines don't add up (even when generalizing, but more importantly for the told stories of the ages of descendants, age of first man, etc. when compared to actual fossils of humanids FAR older than any story in the bible or other religious doctrine). Like I said before, the stories are very interesting and give great lessons about life and morality. I'm all for any doctrine that supports good healthy behavior in our homes and community, and for a doctrine that teaches good values. But a god doesn't have to be involved in it for me to subscribe to it.

For example, there are churches long in existence and currently being formed that are agnostic but still have a church-like service and still collect funds by donation for their people. It promotes good sense of community just like a "real" church, preaches good morals and ethics, and all while not needing to include a god into the doctrine. It's people getting together and deciding to have a strong healthy community of good life fundamentals.

Here's a recent article about a church in Massachusetts that doesn't include god:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/22/church-without-god-by-design/?iref=allsearch

I think Jesus was a real man who had good morals and was clever and had good slight of hand - the key here is that he was a good example to lots of folks after him. His "immaculate conception" seems BS to me though, and sounds more like a good cover-up for some bad decision making in a time where people will believe anything.

Look, the foundations of so many god-fearing religions are truly corrupt and loaded with conspiracy. God has always been used as a tool to keep the "sheeple" in line with fear and guilt, and has been used as a way to control the masses for many millennia. Funny how the Catholics call it "mass" when you go to church... think about it.

 

God I hate when people say "pun intended." Thanks for assuming we couldn't wrap our puny brains around your blatantly obvious play on words, Mr. Condescending...

 

"When a living organism reproduces, genes are passed from one generation to the next, thus producing inherited traits in a species. Evolution is a gradual process of changing in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Most changes are extremely gradual, but can accumulate over time and can cause substantial biological changes to organisms.
Many feel evolution runs on the basis of natural selection, which is a process that causes helpful genetic traits to become more common in a breeding population. The process of evolution helps insure the survival of all species of life. Charles Darwin was an English naturalist who developed the theory of natural selection and presented compelling evidence that all organisms have evolved over time from common ancestors."

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-recent-signs-evolution-is-real.php#ixzz2Y14b6zZA
​

 

All that aside, science continues to prove that we evolved from lesser or different animals due to mutations and evolutionary improvements. I believe we are related to any living thing that has a cellular structure, we just evolved on a different path. Science will continue to keep proving that every day, while science has also yet to prove anything "godly".

 

Good post.

I find it delightfully ironic how many devout worshipers find it convenient to overlook the amount of evil which has been committed in their faith's name/cause.

This spans all religions. I seriously cannot name you a religion which has not committed atrocities in their "God('s')" name(s).

 

I at least acknowledged how lame that was.....

But why are you telling God what you hate.....

 

It's all good.

Aww man! You edited before my emoticons could load!

 

Preach it, brotha

 

Sipping an Avery Red Table Saison.....exclusively available at the brewery.

 

Excellent.

I'm on a bottled Third Shift (DFW) Amber Lager.

After a homemade martini. With 42 Below vodka.

While "working from home."

 

I'd be interested in knowing the overlooked evil. And a list of atrocities and the represented religion and their God.

And please don't tell me to google. As I'm not interested in researching your position.

 

How about we start with one and work from there?

Name me a religion, and if necessary a sect, and I'll do your legwork.

We can branch out after that.

 

Quoting myself again, because I types slows...

We should also establish a standard of atrocities. Because lots of faiths have different definitions (I.E. -- Stoning in Sharia for adultery)

 

Most "atrocities" are committed in the name of the religion(whether admitted or not), and not the "God". Religion is a human attempt to interpret the directions of the divine, and anything that has human interpretation is flawed, by free will. GOD's plan is simple: for us to be a blessing to others and let only him judge our success or failure. As humans we tend to fail miserably at both.

I didn't read all 154 pages of this post, so excuse this if someone suggested it already. A book by Lee Strobel, "The Case for a Creator" is a great resouces for this topic no matter which side of the issue you are on. Lee was the legal editor for the Chicago Times when he started his search for the truth about creation. I'm not affiliated in any way, but it is a good read for a logically minded person seeking more info. Not gonna link his site here, but a Google search is easy enough.

And just in the interest of full disclosure: I am a Christian, which I interpret as flawed people following a perfect example in hopes that we can overcome our human tendencies, rather than giving into them.
Take care.

 

I'll start, and with a very prolific and highly visible religion in the US and the world... Mormonism. Here's one of their early doctrines with a violent foundation (and this doesn't even get into the other known massacres that took place by Smith and his early followers):

Blood Atonement and Oaths of Vengeance

In 1842, Joseph Smith received a series of revelations regarding the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. His goal was the establishment of a theocratic kingdom at Nauvoo, Illinois where he would be the King of Israel, and the Council of Fifty would be the governmental structure which would prepare the way for the millennial reign of Christ. As part of the elaboration for this theocratic plan, Smith presented what would come to be known as the doctrine of "Blood Atonement." The concept behind this doctrine was that people who committed particularly grievous acts against the Mormons would have to shed their blood to atone for the sins they had committed. The Mormons, especially the Danites, used the doctrine of blood atonement as justification for the depredations they committed during their war against the Missourians. Orrin Porter Rockwell also used the concept of blood atonement as justification for his assassination attempt on Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs.(1)

When Joseph Smith was killed on June 27, 1844, his assassins created the circumstances for what has become known as the "Oath of Vengeance." A corollary to the doctrine of blood atonement, the oath of vengeance was created on the first anniversary of Smith's death as a formal prayer for God's vengeance upon those who shed the blood of the prophet's. Six months later this oath of vengeance became a part of the Mormon temple endowment ceremony.(2) The specific oath stated the following:

" You and each of you do solemnly promise and vow that you will pray and never cease to pray and never cease to importune High Heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets on this nation and that you will teach this to your children and your children's children until the third and fourth generation."(3)

This oath of vengeance was used several times in 1845 as justification for killing people who had been involved in the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.(4)

When the doctrines of blood atonement and oath of vengeance were dropped as part of church doctrine, fundamentalists saw this as yet another instance of the church caving in to political pressure. They still believe firmly in these doctrines. Kraut remarks that "Today, the doctrine of blood atonement is never taught and rarely mentioned. The idea of capital punishment has almost become eradicated by communists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and liberal educators. The Oath of Vengeance is no longer a part of the temple ceremony."(5)

This belief in blood atonement and oaths of vengeance serves to further the atmosphere of violence that surrounds fundamentalist culture. Such doctrines make it much easier to believe that violent acts of murder are the will of God. After Adam Swapp bombed the church in Kamas, law enforcement authorities received letters from Swapp stating that their role in John Singer's death made them guilty of "cold blooded murder," and that "this blood cries to the Lord for vengeance. The Lord's holy arm cannot be stayed any longer."(6)

Ervil LeBaron developed the doctrine of blood atonement further, arguing that sinners should shed their blood to save their souls. He also developed an extension to the doctrine which he called the "Law of Liberty," which held that false prophets, traitors, and children who did not obey his directives would be killed. His "Book of New Covenants" was then created as a list of traitors to his cause so that family members could continue to exact his revenge even after his death.(7) According to Salt Lake County district attorney investigator Richard Forbes, the creed defined individuals who left the sect as "sons of perdition" and required they be killed before the Kingdom of God could come to Earth. Forbes also said that the sect's regulations for its members spell out specific punishment for leaving the group, stating that the rules outline, "one-on-one punishment specifically, and that was the death penalty to anyone who forsakes the law."(8)

---------------------------------------------

(1)D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), 110-113.

(2)Quinn, 1994, 179.

(3)Kraut, 79.

(4)Quinn, 1994, 180-181.

(5)Kraut, 78-79.

(6)No Byline, "Polygamist Violence Surfaces Again," United Press International, 17 January 1988, BC Cycle.

(7)Abramson, 45.

(8)Paula Dittrick, "Utah Investigator Testifies About Blood Atonement," United Press International, 12 January 1993, BC Cycle.

 

How about you back up your position with relevant information.

 

Good, um, 2nd post?

For what it's worth, I've read Strobel's book, and it is indeed a good read from either side (or neither side...?). I recommend it.

 

http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/of...creationism-vs-evolution-153.html#post7114869

 

Millions will readily confess they feel helpless in the face of what nature is capable of throwing at them. Many of these compensate for their lack of control by appealing to metaphysical powers they believe control the world around them.

Worship in such situations is seen as a way to influence fate. It's easier to accept one’s own helplessness if one believes the outcome is somehow in the hands of an omnipotent "god", a deity whose benevolence can be purchased by following rigid religiously predictable rules. These are not only rules of conduct, such as those laid out in the Bible and other religious texts, but also rules governing contact with the "supreme being" by way of tightly held channels of religious "authority".

The decline in rigid religious belief in more developed societies appears to correlate with an increased sense of technological control, however illusive that may actually be, over the destructive forces of nature. This society wide sense of increased control reduces the perceived threat level in the overall population, which in turn reduces the need people have to rely on supernatural beings or powers for protection.

When a natural calamity strikes, in the wake of that event as the helpless of man against the forces of nature sinks in once again, attendance at religious services increases exponentially.

Man it seems is of two minds; one bent towards personal religious beliefs to point the way, the other towards a rational scientific approach to life and its challenges.

Finding the balance point is the trick. Not many do so successfully.