Is this a disrespectful statement?

[UdoKier]

Poll question: Is this a disrespectful statement?

Is this statement disrespectful of people's religious beliefs?

"Darwin's theory of natural selection has been repeatedly proven. Evolution is scientific fact. The Judeo-Christian creation story is worthy of being taught as a part of religious mythology, but should not be considered science, since it has no basis in scientific fact"

[tk2kewl]

1. if you want it to be less controversial

replace "religious mythology" with "religious instruction" or something like that

[UdoKier]

5. Why should "mythology" be controversial?

It is by definition mythology. And don't most myths have some basis in historical fact?

The choice off words was not intended to be controversial, just as accurate as possible, and it also leaves the door open to teach it as part of history, literature, philosophy or comparative religion

[tk2kewl]

11. you asked

if you want the statement to be scholarly correct then fine. you wont offend any scholars. if you want the statement to be a political one then i expect that most ordinary religious people don't think of their religions as myths and may be offended.

[HuskerDem]

181. Are you not the one who asked if it was disrespectful?

The answer is yes, many will find it disrespectful. I rather suspect you knew that when you wrote it but were instead looking for a vehicle to express an opinion.

I believe in evolution, but there is a reason why they call it a theory. Unless you are hiding Sherman's wayback machine in your apartment you don't know every fact of evolution. If every fact cannot be proven, it remains a theory, as someone correctly stated earlier - scientific THEORIES are corroborated, proven is for math. You cannot mathematically prove evolution any quicker than you can Christianity or Shinto.

Aquatic Ape Theory
Multi-regional Theory
Neanderthal Assimilation Theory
Out of Africa Theory

This is only a partial list of theories concerning human evolution alone! You would do better to be patient, calm and less antagonistic in your endeavors to spread science to the religious faithful.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

70. Also: scientific theories are not "proven", but "corroborated".

"Proven" is for Math.

[Outrider]

120. even better

Religious Philosophy

[immoderate]

134. Religious Philosophy is an Oxymoron

Look it up.

--IMM

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. Evolution is a FACT! Creation is an OPINION.

.....a mere opinion and nothing else.

[sui generis]

3. you horrible HORRIBLE BIGOT!!

:evilgrin:

actually I would have said, we should teach evolution in science classes and creationism in classes about the tooth fairy and never the twain should meet.

now that would have been disrespectful. but true.

[Fleurs du Mal]

4. Rather euphemistic

I find it hard to be so restrained with respect to this topic. :evilgrin:

[Dogmudgeon]

6. "Mythology" is usually a loaded word. "Mythos" works much better.

You will both keep the peace and advance your point if you make the substitution.

After all, language evolves, too :) .

--p!

[lawladyprof]

14. Maybe allegory. Mythology has a negative connotation

It is so commonly used in connection to religious beliefs that are no longer extant/no longer have adherents. And the emphasis could be on the fact that figurative language can encompass/describe eternal truths in a way that transcends the time frame of the author or reader, in a way that even scientific understanding cannot.

Of course, fundamentalists reject any non literal Biblical interpretation. If Jesus said "fallow fields" he meant actual fields that were unplanted. But really I think they do accept metaphor in the Bible so why they cannot also accept extended metaphor (allegory) is somewhat perplexing.

Sometimes, it seems the hight of arrogance to try to restrict the words of God, to constrain God to "speaking" in a certain way. God could speak in metaphor, so who are we to say he/she/it could not use an allegory.

[RUDUing2]

75. exactly..

the OP is a very good example of why the dems lost the election (and I don't mean just for president)...and why unless this mindset/behavior is recognized and changed they will continue to lose.

[UdoKier]

96. Yes, ignorance and inability to read played a large part in Kerry's loss.

But I'm still not entirely sure he REALLY lost.

You're saying we should dumb it down - I agree, but I will not sacrifice separation of church and state to do that. Equating a religious story to scientific fact or theory is unacceptable.

[RUDUing2]

145. not dumb down...do the same thing that we are requesting the conservs do

show respect for other peoples beliefs and viewpoints.

The number one reason people voted against Kerry was *religion*..unfortunately the dems have the equiv. of the fundies in our party as well. Same mindset. My intelligence/belief/reasoning is right and yours in wrong. I can't allow your version to given any credence so I will try to force society to conform to my viewpoint only. It isn't right when the conserves do this and it isn't right when liberals do this.

There is a very simple solution to this debate but the extremist on both sides will never accept it.

Teach evolution in science class. But also include a section on the starting point. In that one section teach that there are differing opinions and theories on how the universe and life began. In that section you can teach, without going into any specifics, that one theory of thought is that the universe is the result of a supreme creator. they can even qualify it by saying that they are not going to go into this theory because this is a science class and there is no scientific data to coroborate this theory.

Or each side can continue trying to claim moral superiority and continue to achieve nothing except to keep conservatives in power in the government....

Me I want conserves and fundies out of power..and if that means compromise then so be it...unlike Bushie boy I don't think compromise is a dirty word.

[Cobalt Violet]

190. So we should deny the truth and pander to zealots?

Like the republicans?

[phylny]

85. I agree with your point! n/t

[rkc3]

7. Have you ever heard Lewis Black's comments on the Old Testament?

It was written because the people back then were savages who spent all their time living in a fucking desert. They would come to the priests and ask if they could marry their camels - the priests got fed up so they wrote this book to scare the shit out of them.

It's a bunch of stories written to scare the hell out of the in-breds they wanted to keep in line.

Share that with the next Bible thumper you run over - I mean into.

[bzmtq5]

13. Lewis Black?

Apparently neither Lewis or you have bothered to read the Old Testament in a translation that provided meaning given your level of understanding.

Roger, over
By definition, it is absolutely true that Truth is absolute and the Truth we know sets us free.

[Bridget Burke]

15. So, enlighten us.

Start typing!

(hint: Lewis Black is a comedian.)

[bzmtq5]

32. I'm not here to do your bidding....

Start reading.....

[Swamp Rat]

139. Yes you ARE! Bow down to Bridget Burke!!!

[Walt Starr]

16. I've read it,. many times in several translations

The books of the Old Testament are the 2500 to 3000 year old rantings of maniacal nomadic goatherds.

[sui generis]

35. yes - stay away from the locoweed and quit fucking the sheep

:evilgrin:

[Cats Against Frist]

44. Now THAT's disrespectful :)

Congratulations!!!

[bzmtq5]

49. Many times? Several translations? Rantings? Maniacal?

You draw your words from a well of superlatives which at best, obscure the truth.

The New is in the Old contained and the Old is in the New explained...

"The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people." - G.K. Chesterton; ILN, 7/16/1910

[Kathy in Cambridge]

79. Then why don't your fellow fundies practice what Jesus preached?

[bzmtq5]

91. What's a fundie?

I admit, like Bono, I've held hands with the devil but I've been delivered, set free, my sins atoned for by the blood of my Master, my Messiah, Jesus.

I not only practice, I live (to the best of my ability) the life. don't know about "fellow fundies" until I know what/who they are.

Want to know more about me? Check out my friend'sInterview with the Devil

[Swamp Rat]

140. You.

Since you said the link that you provided would tell us more about you, I can only surmise that you are a "fundie." Yes, I watched the "Interview with the Devil." I cannot give you my opinion about it as it would offend you and your friend.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe the war in Iraq is justified? Do you believe ANY war can be justified? Do you believe in "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth?" Who would Jesus bomb?

[bzmtq5]

150. Fun with fundie

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Unfortunately, I'm still unsure I could explain to anyone what a fundie is.

Regarding being offended...I doubt I would take offense at anything you could write. There's a great book titled The Bait of Satan. The bait is offense and I'm learning not to take the bait in most situations and when I do, by God's grace, I pretty quickly realize my mistake and find my way out of that trap, again by God's grace.

Regarding justifiable war....War is Hell. Is hell justified?
I'm not trying to dodge the question but point out the answer may require the further question definition.

Given the evidence that congress and many leaders had at the time, they found justification for going to war. Had I been in the same position as John Kerry, I would have voted for going to war. The recent attacks of 911 and the evidence at that time justified it.

Different evidence would have justified different decisions. From here, we can't go back. Forward is the only option.

I don't believe in "eye for eye," etc.... I believe what Jesus taught and fortunately, I'm not the leader of a nation who has taken an oath and sworn to protect a country.

I am a father who has a family to protect and as the last option, I wouldn't hesitate to kill someone instead of allowing them to kill my wife or daughter.

Jesus taught me to sacrifice my interests for others, not to put my family's well being at risk. Jesus wouldn't bomb anyone and he warned anyone against taking an oath. Unfortunately for our public servants, they've sworn to do things which put them at odds with Jesus' teachings sometimes. I'm in no position to judge them, that's God's job. I'm in a position to pray for them, for wisdom for them and for strength to endure pressure most would buckle under.

"The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man." - G.K. Chesterton; Chapter 19, What I Saw In America, 1922

[Marxdem]

119. Interesting

How could someone be a fundie if they don't practice what they preach? Kind of an illogical statement eh?

[bluestatepatriot]

88. I'm not here to bible bash...

BUT, there are some things in the Bible that cannot be accepted as TRUTH, or morally acceptable in this day and age, such as selling one's daughter into slavery, not allowing people to wear clothes made of mixed fabrics, or killing a child that curses at his parents. I mean, have you looked at some of the things in Leviticus? Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the ultimate, and most important lesson from the Bible is essentially the quote that you included above by Chesterton-the notion that we should love one another. But there were things placed in the bible to pretty much do what Lewis Black satirically said, to provide some necessary social regulations on the behaviors of the people living at the time in that part of the world. And there is nothing wrong with that, so long as we recognize those particular parts of the Bible in context.

[bzmtq5]

153. Amen

Fully agree.

[Walt Starr]

93. BWAHAHAHAHA

The old is one set of maniacal rantings. The new is nothing more than a new set of maniacal rantings.

That's my opinion of the flawed literary work and I'm sticking to it!

[DoNotRefill]

109. rantings of maniacal nomadic goatherds

I think you give them too much credit....

[Walt Starr]

142. I'm trying to be nice here

:shrug:

[sui generis]

43. yes and when a man is standing he is not sitting

make a man angry and you will have an angry man

if you can snatch the marble out of my hand you will have the marble

OH AND THIS ONE:

There is no such thing as absolute truth. That's a silly bible concept meant to underscore faith by rejecting all other arguments.

The only freedom it gives you is the freedom to deny reality and rationality.

[bzmtq5]

55. Truth?

"There is no such thing as absolute truth."

Is that absolutely true?

"The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man." - G.K. Chesterton; Introduction to the Book of Job, 1907

[sui generis]

67. good lord!

I could not live my life in your bible. My life is worth so much more than having to look up a quotation from someone else for every breath I draw.

I can think for myself. One of the things I think is that this god of the old testament is an evil bastard, that jesus is a negligent deity, that suffering is the most absurd test of faith any sick fuck could design, and even if by some weird trick of science fiction fantasy it turns out that he exists I would still spurn him for the evil immoral immature lout of a god that he is.

And I sure as hell don't believe that the bible is the "good" book.

[bzmtq5]

87. Think?

Why is your life "worth so much"?

Sorry about another question, it seems you may be able to think but you'd prefer avoiding questions.

Observation: It seems you have set yourself up as a judge of "god" yet display a certain duplicity...."Subject: "good lord!"...."message: bad lord...". Sound theology can help you avoid such confusion.

I want you to know I don't "have" to look up quotes...many well up from within and looking up others is a hobby, not a source of life. My breath is given to me by God, not quotes.

I'm not sure if I'll address some of your other concerns but for now, I'm guessing you'd enjoy this
"Interview with the Devil", perhaps in a perverse sort of way. Nonetheless, I just came across it and I'm trying to advance it whenever possible.

It's more than evident you have a problem with authority, so until you get over that, I won't be bothering you anymore....

Message Board Rule #2
2.Treat people with respect. Don't be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message, not the messenger.

[Walt Starr]

102. I'll put it this way, my life is worth a lot more than the maniacal

rantings of nomadic goatherds.

[sui generis]

103. yes I have a problem with authority

my life belongs to nobody but me - nobody is responsible for me or my actions but me. I honor and cherish goodness and generosity in other people, that's part of what makes me a liberal and a democrat. What I get from that is the same satisfaction that you get from your faith.

What I don't understand is why someone of faith can't understand that someone like me who spurns faith can't be happy or well adjusted or productive or good, or as equally concerned with every value of human decency that people of faith espouse.

It's not black and white. Having a problem with ultimate authority isn't wrong when you value freedom of choice and individuality above all else.

You are what you make of yourself with the resources you have at the time you have them in the place that you are, not what some outside entity pre-ordains for you. And judgement can flow both ways and I judge the judeo-christian religion and its deity quite harshly for the most part.

And I wasn't being mean to you, although I disagree with you so fundamentally on this topic it is hard not to judge as you complained about my problem with "authority". I was just stating my very strongly held views with great passion since you were doing the same.

[datasuspect]

106. why do you hate god?

why are you so angry?

(/sarcasm)

[sui generis]

118. I just went and looked at your Interview with the Devil

I'm not impressed. Knowledge is not evil. I know the difference between good and evil. And evil doesn't have a spiritual personification. Deities who let their faithful suffer and die terribly while letting the bad guys live and prosper are evil. Deities who think it's okay to kill every firstborn child and turn people's wives into pillars of salt are evil. Deities who don't see anything wrong with letting you burn in eternal hell for a minor indiscretion or not getting "saved" are evil. Deities who tell you that the promised land is yours, and all you have to do to claim it is kill or drive out every man woman and child that lives there now, is evil. And I could go on and on.

I think your interview is a little childish and confused, and misleading. I'm sorry - I think we are so entirely different that rational conversation is not possible on this topic.

[bzmtq5]

152. Not my interview...

For clarity, I can't take credit for the interview. My interview with him was before I knew Jesus and I fell for some of his lies. I wouldn't want to broadcast my interview with him.

I agree knowledge is not evil. It's only a tool that can be used to advance or retard evil....and good.

I'm not sure what you mean by "evil doesn't have a spiritual personification". Can you clarify? Do you believe evil exists?
In what form? Where's it come from? etc...

Sound theology identifies evil comes from one source, good from another. Jesus defined both pretty clearly for me.

Your dilema regarding deities who don't prevent suffering, etc... is well thought out and one of the thorniest questions in theology. It makes sense to want a deity who prevents everything that is evil. Unfortunately the variable of free will is what stays the hand of a loving deity from intervening in every situation without being asked. If He did, we'd have to surrender free will and that goes against His nature, IMHO.

I'm guessing you've heard the story about sin entering the world, man falling from what he was designed to be, etc...

Evil exists, God knows it and I know it and I know how to overcome it...with good.

The Bible says one day everyone will understand this. Until then, evil will not be subdued, IMHO.

You wrote:
"Deities who don't see anything wrong with letting you burn in eternal hell for a minor indiscretion or not getting "saved" are evil"

The deity I serve does see something wrong with that and offers a solution. More importantly, minor and major indiscretions don't send anyone to hell unless they morph from an indiscretion into a "lifestyle".

Sorry you thought the interview was confused. I know many who didn't and if there's something specific I can address...let me know. I pray that confusion gets cleared up and assure you we are not so entirely different.

Finally, Jesus set the record straight regarding entry into the promised land. His surrender, crucifixion and resurrection sealed the deal and continued the plan set in motion in Genesis. He was the "seed" identified in Genesis 3:15 to bring salvation to all the world. I agree some pretty ugly results came about via adherence to the mission...nonetheless, as Jesus said, "It is finished".

You and I can't change the past so we must go forward and it is in the future that much will be revealed to those of us who hang on to what's been promised.

"Theology is only thought applied to religion." - G.K. Chesterton; The New Jerusalem

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." - G.K. Chesterton; Chapter 5, What's Wrong With The World, 1910

[sui generis]

156. that comment about lifestyle

what exactly did you mean by that? If you are referring to gay people, as far as I know they don't live a "lifestyle" any more than straight people live a "lifestyle". Everybody has a life, we all have lives. The word "lifestyle" implies choices.

You also implied that in your belief system that certain "lifestyles" go to hell. I just wanted to be sure I understand what you are referring to.

At any rate if there were such a thing as god, especially the god of the christian bible, I would clearly rather go to hell than align myself with such a bizarre, moody, petulant, oh, and evil, entity.

Just because he said "it is finished" doesn't wrap things up and put a bow on them for me.

Why are you here? Are you a democrat or a progressive? I get the very strong feeling that you are not aligned with us. If you are here just to preach and try to convert sinners, then you don't belong here - this is a political forum and our discussion of religion is insofar as its impact on government.

[bzmtq5]

162. Just answers....

"what exactly did you mean by that?"

I intended to take exception to your statement that people go to hell for a minor indiscretion. No more, no less. e.g. the person that smokes 2 packs a day has exceeded indiscretion and adopted a lifestyle. They will likely reap what's been sown via "a little hell on earth", if you will. I'm not saying severe health problems will be the fate of all heavy smokers but the probability is high. Personal experience with family causes me to call the consequences "a little hell on earth".


"Why are you here?"

- Several reasons....free country, love of people, love of debate, love of writing and good quotes. I like to educate and be educated....here comes one of those quotes...The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled. -Plutarch



"Are you a democrat or a progressive?"

- Progressive. Though I'm not registered, I'm open to being a candidate and a contender some day.


"I get the very strong feeling that you are not aligned with us. If you are here just to preach and try to convert sinners, then you don't belong here - this is a political forum and our discussion of religion is insofar as its impact on government."

- The best outcome of religion's impact on government would be accelerated conversions. This might not align with your philosophy but I've found nothing written by any legitimate authority at this site that forbids my views.

Shalom!

"The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man." - G.K. Chesterton; Chapter 19, What I Saw In America, 1922

[immoderate]

135. I fell for it.

I went to the interview. I couldn't tell which "speaker" was the devil. But DAMN! I kicked their post count. Foolish me.

--IMM

[Djinn]

122. and it's absolutely true

that we should condone slavery as long as the slaves are not from ones own nation and that daughters who are not virgins on their wedding night should be stoned to death

[bzmtq5]

154. Read (and understand) the whole book

[Djinn]

184. I have

both Old and New Testament and I've also read the Koran as well - what do you beleive I don't understand?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

10. hahahahahahahahahaha...............True.

:kick:

[bzmtq5]

64. MESSAGE BOARD RULE #2

MESSAGE BOARD RULES (SHORT VERSION)

2.Treat people with respect. Don't be rude or bigoted. Discuss the message, not the messenger.

[DrWeird]

71. Oh, I'm familiar with the rules.

I'll say it again.

Creationists, like holocaust deniers, freepers, republicans, klan members, Al Qaeda, and other people of that sort don't deserve respect.

[HuskerDem]

182. "there must be something WRONG WITH YOU"

That was a comment I heard from a woman on C-SPAN on so-called "Black Friday" about people who couldn't afford to shop for Christmas.

I see no difference between her ugliness and bigotry and yours.

[DrWeird]

201. Here's the difference.

I'm judging people based on the content of their character.

[Djinn]

124. thinking your beliefs are wrong

and even ludicrous is not rude or bigoted.

You, given your stated beliefs here, think MY beliefs are wrong and ludicrious - OMIGOD - bigot bigot!

can't the religious amongst us just beleive and shut the hell up, remeber that bit in the Bible about not shouiting from street corners.

why do you care what I beleive if you're so damn sure you know the truth?

[bzmtq5]

155. Jesus is a messenger....

"Discuss the message, not the messenger."

The Bible says not to pray for show on the street corners....

Why do I care....?

Because God cares.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. as one of those whacky christians...

i have no problem with that statement...i don't really like the word mythology but as it's definition is consistent with most religions it is cool with me!

theProdigal

[bzmtq5]

12. Irrespective re: disrespect....Clarification needed...

It is true that "Darwin's theory of natural selection has been repeatedly proven" but the second sentence...."Evolution is scientific fact" requires further definition given all the misunderstanding which swirls around the term "evolution".

Two schools of thought seem to exist today which use the term quite differently, one field is science, the other is "sciencism". More on sciencism can be found in The Real Face of Atheism by Ravi Zacharias. RZIM

Roger, over
By definition, it is absolutely true that Truth is absolute and the Truth we know sets us free.

[slutticus]

177. ROTF.... Ravi Zacharias! Are you kidding me!?!?

I am absolutely certain that this man has never even met an atheist and i'm pretty sure that he's never studied anything other than Fredrick Nietzsche ....If you really beleive that atheists are as depicted in that vile pile of garbage, then I really pity you.

Anyway...evolution is scientific fact. Evolution is used everyday in the biotech field to create new enzymes and and therapeutic proteins. It's known as "directed evolution". I will elaborate more if you wish.

No further defining of the term is neccessary. And please...for the love of god...quit reading garbage like The Real Face of Atheism. I beg of you.

[RUDUing2]

17. it is a disrespectful statement..if you want to say the same thing but in

respectful way you only need to make a small change in your wording.

"Darwin's theory of natural selection has been repeatedly proven. Evolution is scientific fact. The Judeo-Christian creation story is worthy of being taught as a part of *comparitive religion or comparative religious studies*, but should not be considered science, since it has no *scientific proof to use as verification*"


You are making a disrespectful statement when you call Judeo-Christian a religious mythology, even if that is your personal belief. You are allowing personal bias to warp your logic.

[Walt Starr]

18. Sorry, but it *IS* mythology by definition

So it *CAN* be taught in a comparative mythology course, which it has been time adn again at the collegiate level.

I highly reccommend Joseph Campbell.

[RUDUing2]

21. no some people have decided that it is mythology..

and you agree with them. To the majority of americans it is not mythology and just like the repubs you don't have the right to try and force your personal beliefs regarding religion on anyone else.
You have no more right to declare that christianity is a myth then the religious right has to declare that only christianity is true..

[UdoKier]

22. You need to check your dictionary.

Mythology does not mean "untrue". Enough with your knee-jerk reactions, already.

[RUDUing2]

25. and you know perfectly well that dictionary terminology is not

what matters, but instead what the socially accepted meaning and understanding of the word. If you weren't meaning it in that manner you would have chosen a different word, instead of one that you knew would cause issues.

[Walt Starr]

29. Dude, educate yourself, the basis of ANY religion is a MYTH by DEFINITION!

:eyes:

[RUDUing2]

31. again learn the difference between dictionary definition and

common usuage definition..it will make your life much easier.

[Walt Starr]

34. Common usage dictates that allreligions are based upon myths

BY DEFINITION!

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walt Starr]

45. Thanks for the personal attack

In fact, I am an ordained minister of the Wiccan faith.

[UdoKier]

56. Also based on mythology!!!

Are you going to go slit your wrists now that I've dropped this bombshell revelation on you?

I mean, the fact that your faith is based on mythology automatically invalidates the whole thing, right?

;-)

[Walt Starr]

60. Nope, I embrace the mythology for what it is and revel in the beauty

of the allegory contained therein!

Truly, some of the most beautiful mythology in human history were the Celtic myths. Of course, those myths could also give the Yahwist mythology presented in the Old Tetament a real run for its money as far as brutality goes.

;)

[UdoKier]

47. I believe he called CREATION a myth.

Christianity is a religion. The stories in the bible are myths, MANY WITH SOME REAL HISTORICAL basis, but they are still myths. It is not a history book.

[Walt Starr]

51. PROOF: All god(s) are myths by definition

Myth (n) A person or thing existing only in imagination, or whose actual existence is not verifiable.

There is no independently verifiable evidence to support the assertions that any of the over 4000 gods that have been alleged to exist during human history do in fact exist, ergo, every last one of the over 4000 gods that have been alleged to exist during human history are, in fact, myths by definition.

If the gods that have been alleged to exist were not myths, faith would be obsolete by definition.

[Forkboy]

63. RUGettingpostdeleted?

[bzmtq5]

157. No...

[Forkboy]

167. Unless you're RU's sockpuppet you'll see my response was directed at him

And yes,his was post was deleted :eyes:

[Cheswick2.0]

195. but that is not really the point and you know it Walt

you can chose to be rude or you can chose to be respectful of others.

[bzmtq5]

78. The basis of Christianity is Jesus Christ

Where's the body?

Why'd the calendar change?

How was the image created on the shroud of Turin?

Why have thousands (millions?) chosen death rather than deny Jesus' deity?

Why are dreams of the Messiah (Jesus) converting Muslim's to Christianity?

Why did I become a Christian given my desire to never be fooled?

I'll grant some religions are based on myth, but by definition, not all religion is the stuff of fairy tales. The blood of Christ, Christians and Christianity transcend myth.

"The simplification of anything is always sensational." - G.K. Chesterton; Varied Types

"Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice." - G.K. Chesterton; ILN 9/11/1909

Roger, over
By definition, it is absolutely true that Truth is absolute and the Truth we know sets us free.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

81. The Shroud of Turin is a hoax

I'm Catholic and even I don't believe that bullshit.

[Walt Starr]

95. My answers

Where's the body?

Rotted away to dust like most bodies of those who have lived.

Why'd the calendar change?

Politics

How was the image created on the shroud of Turin?

There are dozens of theories as to how that fraud was perpetrated.

Why have thousands (millions?) chosen death rather than deny Jesus' deity?

Homo sapiens has yet to evolve into an intelligent species.

Why are dreams of the Messiah (Jesus) converting Muslim's to Christianity?

Homo sapiens has yet to evolve into an intelligent species.

Why did I become a Christian given my desire to never be fooled?

Homo sapiens has yet to evolve into an intelligent species.

I'll grant some religions are based on myth, but by definition, not all religion is the stuff of fairy tales. The blood of Christ, Christians and Christianity transcend myth.

Bullshit, ALL religions are based upon myth by definition.

[bzmtq5]

159. This getting fun....

"Rotted away to dust like most bodies of those who have lived."

-No proof but I'll grant your opinion isn't maniacal


"Politics "

-Are you crediting politics or blaming it?


"There are dozens of theories as to how that fraud was perpetrated."

-I'd like to hear them...especially if one of them contradicts the research I've done. The latest buzz among scientists which I'm aware of theorizes biological holographic radiation made the image. See Empirical Evidence Supporting Macro-Scale Quantum Holography in Non-Local Effects and Science Explains the Image on the Shroud of Turin. Looking forward to the day we know more.


"Homo sapiens has yet to evolve into an intelligent species."

- Et tu?


"Homo sapiens has yet to evolve into an intelligent species."

- i.e. are you an alien or one of us?



"Homo sapiens has yet to evolve into an intelligent species."

- is there an "intelligent species" which has "evolved"?



"Bullshit, ALL religions are based upon myth by definition."

- Any proof? I'd like to hear a well-reasoned explanation. For now, your opinion appears somewhat maniacal.

The term "religion" on it's own doesn't genuinely define your claim...I'm religious about truth. Saying that is based on myth is nonsensical, by the definition of "truth".

"Myths" are of course mythical and who ventures to trust there's anything definitive about them?

It seems the only other definition which is part of this equation is God. I suggest it would make more sense for you to say that God is a myth but then, perhaps that is what you are saying...that religion based on a God is the stuff of myths.

Then our disagreement is about God, not religion.

"The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden." - G.K. Chesterton; ILN 1-3-20

"The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man." - G.K. Chapter 19, What I Saw In America, 1922

[Walt Starr]

187. I proved that all gods are myths by defnition in this thread

And yes, I am a member of the unevolved unintelligent species, Homo sapiens.

[Cheswick2.0]

199. no Walt you didn't prove anything

Actually the other poster kicked your ass debate wise. You can't prove that all Gods are myths.

[datasuspect]

99. so

you're saying christianity is a blood cult?

[Walt Starr]

105. I prefer to think of it as an androcentric death cult

But that's interpreting the dogma pretty literally.

[m berst]

111. cruising along here

And more Chesterton quotes. I would welcome a sincere Christian who is politically liberal or progressive. I saw the Chesterton quotes, and for that reason did not dismiss you out of hand. Now I see from a Google search that Chesterton quotes can be found on many right wing sites put to dubious use. It is a complex world within which we live, is it not? That is good reason to forgo the simple and lazy shortcut of deciding who is wearing the black hat and who the white based on something as silly as their acknowledgment of simple observations of the world around us. Populations of living things change over time. Not much controversy there.

You are running the risk of getting off to a bad start here on DU. May I ask why you chose an evolution thread for posting?

"It is the mark of our whole modern history that the masses are kept quiet with a fight. They are kept quiet by the fight because it is a sham-fight; thus most of us know by this time that the Party System has been popular only in the sense that a football match is popular." - GKC

[Djinn]

126. dear oh dear oh dear

where is what body? how many bodies of non royals from 2000 years ago can you find? not too many? does that mean they were ALL the son of god?

The calendar changed because enough people wanted it to/the RIGHT people wanted it to - Nazi's were in power because enough people wanted them to be NOT because they embodied an ultimate truth, Iraq was invaded because the "right" people wanted it to be NOT because it was the right thing to do

Shroud of Turin...sorry got to wipe the tears from my eyes...demonstrably and proven fake

Why have thousands (millions?) chosen death rather than accept a diety they didn't beleive in.

Why are all sorts of people ABANDONING Christianity, converting to Islam, Judaism, paganism, atheism?

Why did I become a Christian given my desire to never be fooled? - you might have the desire but using the shroud of turin shows you havn't actually become impervious to being fooled

Just like every religious believer since the dawn of time you think YOUR belief is the true one - that's nice dear but leave me and my taxes the hell out of it

[UdoKier]

41. The socially acccepted definition is the dictionary definition.

If you have a bugaboo about the word, I can't help you with that.

You attribute motivations in me that are simply not there (though there are obviously some folks here taking gratuitous swipes at your beliefs.

I'm all for everyon practicing and believing any religion, however they like, but the moment they try to insert their religious mythology into a science classroom, I recoil, because, as I said, those stories have no basis in science. They are stories that have been passed down and translated several times through the millenia. Science is by definition based on empirical data. The bible offers none.

It's not a matter of proving or disproving the bible. It is there, it is a crucial tenet of many people's faith. Why should I want to prove or disprove it?

It's so strange that Americans have this strange insistence on reading the bible as though it were some sort of history book where every phrase is to be taken literally. The bible is something much more than a mere history book.

But it contains no science in it.

[RUDUing2]

54. no it really isn't. which is why not too long ago a guy was fired

for using the word niggardly in its correct manner...didn't matter what the dictionary said was the definition..that wasn't what the socially accepted definition and understanding was.

[sui generis]

74. too bad - I've heard Peter Jennings use it

I did not mean that I approve, but we're all talking across fences here.

For some of us, faith is incomprehensible. For others, the lack of faith is incomprehensible.

If you are truly not a freeper, and I hope not, don't let this discussion turn you away; we are all very opinionated. It's hard to have any opinion for or against the effects of religion in society without one side being accused of bigotry by the other.

I am therefore a religious bigot, but there are really more important political issues to discuss, just so long as we can keep religion out of the government and away from the public classroom.

[UdoKier]

84. And he should not have been let go.

(unless he was using it deliberately just to be provocative)

I despise the ignorance of the mob winning out over accuracy and logic.

[immoderate]

160. I think the "niggardly" guy was rehired

I could be wrong.

--IMM

[Cats Against Frist]

59. The word itself doesn't even matter

only what it signifies. And since it signifies different things to different people, what you're doing, in essence, is suggesting that language is subjective, which is very anti-God, in the grand scheme of things. If language is subjective, then the Bible could have been interpreted totally wrong -- you know, the Raelian cult insists that Elohim means "people who came from the sky."

And I'm more likely to believe their alien version of "the way things are," than what's been handed down by corrupt popes, patriarchal powermongers and delusionals.

[Walt Starr]

28. Dude. look up the definition of myth

The basis of all religions, regardless of the religion, are myths by definition!

I didn't invent the word. I only use it correctly when discussing the basis of religions, and all religions are based upon mythology BY DEFINITION!!!

[CarbonDate]

113. And a child with unwed parents *is* a bastard by defintion....

...but it's still not nice to say so.

Theology works better, IMO. Means the same thing, carries less negatives.

[sui generis]

147. aye, but theology is usually only used in context of the study

of certain monotheistic entities, namely the judeo-christian tradition. Open any Bullfinch's Mythology and the cover page says that everything in there is mythology, invented by ignorant people before the "ultimate truth" of Christianity was made known to the world, . . .which I found a bit absurd.

Okay, a lot absurd.

The thread was provocative - but the poster is being honest. In this room with offended christians and offended atheists and offended moderates, each of us thinks we're not as extreme as the other two, which is kind of funny; and I'm sure that some of us are pulling punches that would be otherwise be deemed offensive by looking for euphemistic words, when we clearly think otherwise.

I'm definitely guilty of not pulling punches - but I draw the line at attacking someone personally.

The problem is when your beliefs are inextricably entwined with your persona, you can't attack someone's beliefs without them taking it personally, which really limits discussion if you're trying to voice you own opinions.

[Cheswick2.0]

200. but of course the purpose is to be rude

[UdoKier]

19. I don't think so.

For all I know, every word in the bible could be true. But that doesn't change the fact that the bible's contents are mythology (along with heaping servings of metaphor, parable and sermons), as is the Koran, as is the Talmud, as are many of the accounts of the life of the Buddha.

You take it as a smear, because you think that YOUR religion's mythology should be somehow elevated over all others.

Should the stories of Zeus and the gods of Olympus no longer be referred to as mythology? I assure you, people at one time believed in them just as fervently.

Calling bible stories anything other than mythology is biased, not the other way around.

[RUDUing2]

23. I don't think any living religion should be called mythology

not christianity, not islam, not hindu, not pagan, etc. The use of the word is simply a small minded attempt at denigation and belittlement...not something that *liberals* should be comfortable doing...

The only religions that should be referred to as mythology are those that are from ancient civilizations...like Greek Gods, Baal, etc...

[Walt Starr]

33. Then you had better not refer to Greek mythology or Norse Mythology

There are Diannic worshippers to this day. Asatru still practice the Norse Pagan faith. Both religions are living, ergo, under your logic Greek Mythology and Norse Mythology should not be referred to as "mythology".

:eyes:

[Behind the Aegis]

80. you are right

I follow a Greek pagan path and am VERY aware that is is MYTHOLOGY! To me, this is just another way the "Xian right" can be the "victim" of the intellectual, elite left! Their religion is as based in mythology as mine, I just don't shove my beliefs down everyone's throat!

Some people here have made some GREAT points and those that have a problem with the word "mythology" need to re-read those posts!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

83. My religion is based on "The Lord of the Rings Trilogy"

that's basically what the creation myth amounts too. There is one in every culture. And most Christians with half a brain can manage to understand that.

[Walt Starr]

97. Expand you mind

Base it on the Silmarillion.

:evilgrin:

[Withywindle]

204. And on the seventh day...

Melkor created heavy metal! :headbang:

[sui generis]

53. why is it "belittling" ?

It's as if you are making a claim of superiority about "live" religions that somehow trumps "dead" religions.

To some people it's splitting hairs - I think that may be the point of this possibly tasteless thread.

[Walt Starr]

57. And even superiority over some religions that are still living

as evidenced in my post about Diannic worshippers and adherents of Asatru.

[Cats Against Frist]

66. Uh -- who says that Baal isn't "the man?"

[sui generis]

148. Ba'al eats babies - he's a meanie

the other guy just turns you into a pillar of salt or lets you roast in eternal hell for eating shrimp or farting in church on Sunday and not begging divine forgiveness.

Come to think of it, they're both evil sonsabitches.

[datasuspect]

82. what other ideas,

words, and concepts need to be changed so that they can be compatible with your feelings/notions of doctrinal purity?

[Djinn]

127. how do you know no-one beleives in those Gods anymore

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

206. They're mutually exclusive! At least N-1 of them HAVE to be mythology!

Jesus either is or isn't the Son of God.
Reincarnation either does or does not occur.
There either is or isn't punishment for wrongdoing in an afterlife.

BASIC LOGIC.

[Walt Starr]

30. There are still people who worship Zeus, Hera, Dianna, etc.

All mythology continues to live!

[RUDUing2]

36. then fine..it should all be covered as comparative religious studies.

[UdoKier]

48. Nobody is objecting to that.

At least I hope not. I'm not, anyway.

[Walt Starr]

68. I do, but for a good reason

See my response to his post. Comparative religious studies and comparative mythology are two different avenues of study.

;)

[Walt Starr]

65. No, it shouldn't as the religions are not what is compared.

The myths are what is compared. One is a comparison of literature and literary value while the other is comparison of social structures, taboos, organizations, etc.

Comparative religious studies and Comparative mythology are two completely seperate animals, and comparing creation myths falls under the heading of comparative mythology. How two divergent religious cultures react to those creation myths falls under the category of comparative religious studies.

I'm sorry if scholarly pursuits doesn't fit your worldview of what is and is not politically correct, but that's your problem, not mine.

:eyes:

[fujiyama]

20. It's not a "personal belief"

that the Judeo Christian story of creationism is religious mythology.

Because that's EXACTLY what it is. It's mythology, as are Hindu stories of creationism.

Creationism is nonsense. In fact, I would be just as ready to call it a fable or a tall tale.

[UdoKier]

26. I wouldn't use those words.

They are different things, and using those words would be corrrectly interpreted as a deliberate swipe at people's beliefs.

"Mythology" does not rule out the possiblity that some elements of a story might be true, whereas those words imply that the stories are outright fiction, something which cannot be proven.

[RUDUing2]

27. nope that is your personal belief...you and science can not

disprove a supreme creator anymore then someone else can prove one..
therefore both belief and disbelief are personal choices...

[Walt Starr]

37. In logical discourse, the claimant with the intial positive assertion is

under the burden of proof, ergo, those who calaim the existance of invisible deities directing everything are obligated to prove it or their allegations remain MYTHS by definition.

[RUDUing2]

50. christianity was around before evolution was proclaimed..

creationism was believed before evolutionary theory was expoused..ergo by your own words, the burden is on you to prove that God doesn't exist...
but that is as impossible as proving He does exist...so whether you believe or disbelieve..it is simply a matter of personal belief.

[Cats Against Frist]

69. And they believed the sun moved around in the flat Earth's sky

before that one was knocked out of the park.

That would be the "argumentum ad populum" fallacy -- no matter who believes it, how many people believe it or how long it's been believed -- does NOT make it true.

[Walt Starr]

72. Evolution does not claim a god exists or doesn't exist

Evolution makes no statement about any god.

[DrWeird]

42. No, science cannot disprove God.

It can, howver, disprove the literal interpretation of the Biblical creation story, and it has. So the bit about Adam and Eve and the Seven Days and the Garden of Eden IS mythology whether you use the dictionary definition of the word or the layman's definition.

[sui generis]

46. yes but philosophy can

I got an A in philosophy by proving my professor didn't exist.

[RUDUing2]

58. but most christians dont interpet the bible literally. Only a small

subset do.

[DrWeird]

62. Exactly.

An isolated community of nutjobs who have somehow managed to get on a number of school boards in the United States.

Fucking savages.

[Cobalt Violet]

192. They do when it is convenient to do so.

That what drives me berserk.

[sui generis]

61. and science can't disprove the tooth fairy either

that doesn't automatically make the tooth fairy exist and responsible for creation.

[Walt Starr]

73. Tooth Fairy is good, but I prefer the IPU

The Invisible Pink Unicorn took a shit and thus the Universe was created.

And you can't prove he didn't!

;)

[frank frankly]

121. LOL

sorry, I meant to say, ROFL!

[Goldmund]

151. Are you for real???????

"You are making a disrespectful statement when you call Judeo-Christian a religious mythology"

And what is it, according to you?!?!??!

[RUDUing2]

166. a theological belief system and/or a religion...

mythology implies made up and false.

You may feel that your belief is superior and correct but it is still a belief system. If you want respect from those who believe in God or Gods then you need to be willing to offer that same respect to them for their beliefs.

The OP obviously knew the statement was disrespectful and it is very telling that the *poll* didn't match the statement, but instead sequed to something different.

I believe the statement was disrespectful, as the OP intended it to be. I also do not believe creationism should be taught in science class, although I have no problem with (and actually think it could solve a lot of the fighting) the instructor doing two things before starting into Evolution itself.

1. A short lesson on what theory means. Students need to be aware what theory means when speaking in scientific terms.

2. A short lesson on the different theories of how the universe and life began. Alude to creationism (not just judeo/christian, but other religions as well), intelligent design, and scientific theories, followed by the statement: Creationism and intelligent design can not be validated by scientific means and since this is a science class we will not be discussing those theories. If you are interested in more information on those theories, I would recommend that you take a comparative religion class.

This should pacify all but the most extremist fundies and atheist.

[UdoKier]

170. What a bunch of bunk.

First of all, I did not use the *correct* word "mythology" to be disrespectful. If that was my intent, I would have used "fairy tale", as others in this thread have done.

As a matter of fact, I said that whatever science may say should not be construed as contrary to whatever truth may be in the bible.

You continue to blame me for the fact that YOU are unclear on the meaning of the word mythology, and are arrogant enough to presume that the vast majority of people don't know what it means. Sorry, but the post wasn't aimed at people without a 9th grade education.

You then hypocritically say that you don't think creationism should be taught in science class, but that you think the instructor should issue some sort of sycophantic disclaimer to those whose beliefs may not correlate with accepted scientific findings.

If creationism or "intelligent design" have no basis in the scientific method, why should they be included in a science curriculum?

And the definitions of the words "theory", "inference" and "hyothesis" are generally among the first things covered in any late elementary or early junior high science course. There is no need to re-emphasis what a theory is just because the subject of evolution has come up, unless you have an agenda to somehow imply that the process of evolution hasn't been proven to take place. It seems to me that you want to go out of your way to placate fundies, but a science class shouldn't be about that. There should be no ideology, just empirical data and objective interpretations of that data. Save that for your current events, philosophy, social studies and other classes.

my·thol·o·gy     P   Pronunciation Key  (m-thl-j)
n. pl. my·thol·o·gies
A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes.

myth     P   Pronunciation Key  (mth)
n.
A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.

Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.

[RUDUing2]

185. like I said nobody but the most extreme atheist or fundy should have a

problem with it...I take it you have a problem with it? You realize that demanding respect while refusing to give respect is a prime example of hypocritical behavior don't you? As for placating people..it is about finding compromises that show respect to all people, not just those we agree with..I take it you also have a problem with that?

Isn't it funny that the biggest issue I have w/fundies is that same behavior being shown here by some liberals...a complete lack of respect for other peoples belief systems (and atheism is a belief system) and lack of willingness to compromise to show respect for others beliefs...I guess it really is a case of pot meet kettle...

Care to explain why your poll answers/choices did not match your lead question?

[mmonk]

24. People become upset

when you call their creation myths, myths. They are taught they are absolutes due to their taking things in the Bible of their choosing literally. That being said, some people can accept both a supreme being AND evolution and evolution as being a process created or set in motion by a higher power. I would choose different language when approaching the subject with religious people.

[Walt Starr]

39. When I discuss this with people face to face and "myth" upsets them

I substitute "fairy tale" instead.

[Cats Against Frist]

38. Here's an offensive statement: People who voted "yes" are frickin' batty

[DrWeird]

52. And stupid.

:smoke:

[billyskank]

76. Yes it's disrespectful

but not because people's religious beliefs should be treated as scientific fact. It's disrespectful because it's openly stating that a person's religious belief is wrong. It's ok to think that, but it's disrespectful to say it to someone.

[UdoKier]

86. It's not stating that at all, openly or covertly.

Saying that a certain religious mythology is NOT science, does NOT make it "wrong". People are free to accept or deny science as they please. As a matter of fact, only 35% of Americans today believe evolution is "sufficiently supported by evidence", in spite of the fact that evolution has been taught in public schools for decades.

You can choose to believe in science, or the bible myths, or both. But saying that evolution is science and creation is not, is NOT the same as calling it "wrong".

Creation is not valid as scientific theory, but I would never call someone stupid or wrong for believing in it. I would just object to them teaching THEIR mythology to MY kids, who I would like to grow up in a reality-based environment.

My wife is a buddhist. Does she have the right to force YOUR kids to learn HER religion's mythology in a science class in public school? She claims that chanting "Nam-myoho-renge-kyo" is scientifically proven to cure disease, etc. Shall we put that in everybody's health class?

And my wife may be right, too. But it AIN'T SCIENCE.

[sui generis]

92. okay I'll buy that argument

even though I really am an anti-religious bigot; I really don't care about religion at all except when it intersects government, the constitution, and public education. Then the gloves come off.

But you know, proselytizing by the other side is also disrespectful - it's having something as irrational as creationism and intelligent design shoved down our throats in public schools and fights over keeping religion out of government that make the dialogue disrespectful on both sides.

If fundies and some moderates weren't trying to reach into the constitution and my personal life and take away my rights as an American out of pure spite and meanness I probably wouldn't be as angry. I don't have time to split hairs or decide which religions are "good" or not - that's too much time away from real issues for me.

If you're "good" then you shouldn't need religion to underscore your actions on the behalf of goodness and I shouldn't need to hear about jeebus and morality and bibles and values and being saved and I won't share my atheist secular humanist views either and we'd all get along.

[DoNotRefill]

77. I don't see how evolution can be considered to be a "fact"...

It's a theory. We don't know how it actually works, but the theory of evolution best explains the evidence we have.

Now creationism isn't really even a viable theory, because there's no evidence at all to support it.

[UdoKier]

89. It's a fact because it has been observed to take place.

Small organisms have been observed to evolve in the elaboratory. Humans have become larger by an order of several inches over the last few decades. Genetic identification and carbon dating all confirm bneyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is occurring, and has occurred for as long as life has existed on this planet. It is a function of living organisms that they evolve.

[DoNotRefill]

104. you say:

"Humans have become larger by an order of several inches over the last few decades."

That's not evolution, that's normalization of the food supply with a resultant decrease in malnutrition.

"Genetic identification and carbon dating all confirm bneyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is occurring, and has occurred for as long as life has existed on this planet."

They confirm that SOMETHING is occuring, but the mechanism still hasn't been truly explained. One of my professors many moons ago (and NO, he wasn't a fundie) used the example of bats developing their "sonar". If, indeed, it's a gradual process, how would bats naturally select for that kind of thing? Remember, it's a hugely complex system. If they develop the ability to project but not the ability to receive (or vice versa), it's a useless mutation. In other words, EVERYTHING needs to work all at once or it's of no benefit to the organism.

Generally, for something to be "scientific fact", there needs to be a theory to explain it, and it needs to be reproducable under laboratory conditions. With evolution, we can cause mutation, but CONTROLLING the mutation (so that we get the same mutation every time in different places if the same procedure is followed) is another thing altogether.

Please note: I am NOT saying that Creationism has a single stitch of validity to it, just that we don't have a firm enough grasp on evolution to be able to call it "fact". And even "facts" are subject to revision...

[muriel_volestrangler]

169. A particular mutation does not have to be repeatable

ie 'get the same one every time in different places'. If it happens once, in a small enough population and the descendants of that organism have a distinct advantage over all the other competing organisms, it can become the only allele.

Bats' sonar is highly developed hearing and an ability to make ultrasonic noises. It's precisely the kind of thing that can be developed gradually - mammals had the ability to hear before bats evolved (which is developed from the ability to feel vibration), and the ability to make lower frequency noises. The basic behaviour of reacting to echos could be useful, and improvements that help more then get selected for.

[smarkit]

163. Evolution IS a fact, and a theory

Although all this fact vs. theory exposition may seem a tad confusing, here's a concise binary clarification courtesy of Harvard's own Stephan Jay Gould:


"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favour). In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent'. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasised the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution."

- Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

[DrWeird]

94. Sure we know how it works.

Mutation. Divergence. Natural selecton. Adaptation.

If you're confused, I recommend a trip to your local library.

[DoNotRefill]

107. It's not that simple.

really.

[bluestatepatriot]

90. here's a simple solution

teach the theory of evolution in schools, as with many other scientific theories that are taught like gravity and relativity, and teach creationism in Sunday schools if parents wish their child to learn it.

[UdoKier]

98. No, no no.

That would make sense.

[Lilith Velkor]

100. Science is not Dogma

The way it works is, you have working theories as to how things work, and if a new one comes along that is a better explanation, go with it and don't glue your mind shut. That's why some scientists don't hypothesize, they just see what happens.

The human need to be certain of everything is irrational, and not the province of true science.

[Endangered Specie]

101. I would have worded alot stronger.

[Walt Starr]

108. Me too

:evilgrin:

[UdoKier]

110. Just an aside. I occasionally use "fundie"

And it is with some measure of disrespect, because I think biblical literalists are just plain kooks. The word "Xian" is also generally considered fairly inoffensive.

But when I hear others calling christians "stupid" or referring to Jesus as "Jeebus" , it seems unnecessarily antagonistic.

I don't consider very religious people to be stupid at all. They just have a different way of looking at things.

And I don't know why you would ridicule a religious icon like Jesus.

I have no beef with Jesus. I think he was a great teacher. I wish more "christians" actually followed his teachings...

[DireStrike]

112. Save me, Jebus!

I think I'm gonna start worshipping the Simpsons.

...Up to a certain season anyway. What an awesome show.

[imenja]

114. take out mythology and it would be okay

to use the word mythology signals that you see their beliefs as false. Simply rework the sentence to omit that word. I might also change the end clause to say it has not been proved scientifically.
That advice, of course, assumes that you are crafting a sentence that seeks to persuade others of your own point of view.

[UdoKier]

116. I'm not trying to persuade anyone. It's just a statement of fact.

And I asked whether the statement was disrespectful, not whether you were in agreement.

As has been repeated ad nauseam in this thread, mythology does not equal falsehood.

Those who are offended by the use of that word need to reexamine their own use and comprehension of the language.

I get the feeling the complainers are the type who would use the expression "I could care less".

[imenja]

117. if you don't care, why did you ask?

I assumed you wanted input. I also imagine that most people on DU agree entirely with the sentiment of your post. Language signals certain meanings. You evidently don't care how your ideas come across, but if that's the case, why post something asking what people think?

[UdoKier]

123. I want to know what people think of this statement because...

I have repeatedly seen people complainning about "disrespect to religious people's beliefs". I've seen a few smartass posts, but very little real disrespect. The statement pretty much sums up my thinking on the shubject, and I was wondering what people thought of that statement.

I disagree with the name-calling and terms like "fairy tale" or "jeebus" . Contrary to what some have said, I do respect people's religious beliefs, but it's very important to me that they recognize the boundaries where their rights end and those of the broader community begin.

You can call it mythology, legend, stories, whatever, but what it is not is a documented history or a scientific treatise, and yet many Christians expect the rest of us to treat it as such. They also expect us to elevate it above the mythology of every other religion. It seems to me that the arrogance and presumptiousness of some fundamentalists know no bounds.

Leave it to the hypersensitive evangelicals to skip the whole point of the statement and focus on their own minsinterpretation of a single word. Anything to keep the all-important Christian Persecution Complex© alive.

I wish I were as persecuted as a white American Christian.

[WildEyedLiberal]

130. I am a Catholic and I agree with you

I think some people on this thread have been incredibly disrespectful to those who are religious... but you are not one of them. I also agree with the wording of your statement about creationism - it is a myth. The tale of creation found in the book of Genesis is a myth. The flood story of Noah is a myth - in fact, there is a similar flood story in Gilgamesh, an epic poem from the same region/epoch as the book of Genesis. Saying that these stories are myth does not invalidate all Christianity, or negate the existence of God. I personally believe very little of Christian dogma; in fact, I'm sure I'm probably heretical according to the church. But I have my own ideas and interpretations of things, and can think for myself enough to realize that the Old Testament is largely comprised of the mythological stories of hte ancient Hebrew people.

I'm really tired so I hope this post makes sense.

[immoderate]

161. I differentiate between repecting people and respecting beliefs.

My father's business partner would not come to our house after my brother adopted a stray black cat. (I know I've told this story before.)

He believed that the black cat was bad luck. I could not respect this belief. I could treat the person with respect though.

--IMM

[HuskerDem]

183. Then why not entitle your original post..................................

"a point of contention with hypersensitive evangelicals"

???????????????????????????????

You asked a facetious question, is this the response you hoped for?

[imenja]

115. delete

delete

[flaminbats]

125. other..

it is not a disrespectful statement, nor is it grounded on scientific fact. It is a shallow statement expressing a narrow view of an evolving science.

[Djinn]

128. as bluestatepatriot

mentions above gravity is also a theory not a "fact" yet few people advoctae not teaching it in schools or teaching that the reason we stay stuck to the earth is because of a magical fairy forcefield

[flaminbats]

129. Who advocates banning physics?

even most of the Republicans I know believe physics must be taught, not all appreciate what is being taught..but this is their loss not ours!

Explain to a teenager sometime how anything can be crushed backwards in time within the singularity of a black hole by gravity..

[DrWeird]

132. Creationists.

They want to ban mention of the big bang. Radiometric dating. They want to misinterpret the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I don't know where you're getting this crushed backwards in time by black holes stuff, but it appears you know as much about physics as you do about biology.

[flaminbats]

136. thanks...

was that supposed to be an insult? :hurts:

I'm merely trying to say all physical theories are expressed mathematically, and ultimately the mathematical operation of counting is essential to any concept used in organizing data collected by scientific instruments. Understand?

[Djinn]

133. that being the point

I've never heard of ANYONE wanting the THEORY of gravity removed from textbooks.

I've never heard anyone advocating teaching the Christian theory as to why we don't float off into the atmos because the theory of gravity is "just" a theory, yet that is what's happening with evolution

[flaminbats]

137. they don't have to view it as evolution...

maybe it would be less disturbing if taught as biodiversity class, or DNA-changing life over time..small differences and a nearly identical pattern.

[Left Is Write]

131. The statement doesn't feel disrespectful to me.

I am a Christian, but I don't view the Creation story as literal. I believe that a belief in God can go hand in hand with the science that is the theory of evolution.

No, I don't think Biblical stories should be considered science. That doesn't mean I think the Bible has no value; obviously as a Christian, it holds great value for me. But it is not science.

edited for clarity.

[Sgent]

138. Judeo-Christian

Many Jews object to this wording -- they are two totally different religions. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 95% of American Jews accept evolution, and its neccissary consequence of an old earth, etc. Lumping them in in this statement directed to our fundie christian friends is disrespectful.

As for the word you use (fact), it's is slightly wrong. No matter how many times something is observed in a labratory -- bacteria mutating, etc, only that one specific observation can be considred fact. Evolution, which predicts what will and has happened, is and always will be a theory -- like gravity, relativity, etc.

[Left Is Write]

146. Did you mean this as a response to me?

Sounds like it was meant for the OP.

[masaka___]

141. We Have More Important Battles To Fight Than This

for example:

DEPLETED URANIUM IN IRAQ

http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

And we're still using that shit, too...

So let's stop arguing amongst ourselves.

Fuck Christianity and Fuck Atheism and Fuck Everything in Between

We're all HUMAN

Even that deformed Iraqi baby above...

If you like the idea of natural selection, then your natural feelings should COMPEL you to make this stop. By fighting against the use of depleted uranium, you become EVOLUTION IN ACTION. REMEMBER :: It's your ACTIONS that make natural selection possible.

On the other hand, if you like the idea of creationism, remember that God made man in his image, and as such, REMEMBER :: WE ARE CREATORS, TOO.

That deformed Iraqi baby was a creation of God AND Man, except this is what happens when man goes against the will of god. Man chose to create weapons out of depleted uranium and man chose to use these weapons against his fellow men and women who were largely innocent, and we reaped what we sowed. ...unfortunately.

HOWEVER, we can create a better reality than this, but not if we keep arguing on a topic where we should just agree to disagree.

Know that Atheists are good people.

Know that Christians are good people, too.

Know Muslims are good people, too.

No matter how crazy things get in the world, KNOW that ALL PEOPLE are of basically good intent. We're all trying to do right.

Let's take a few steps back.... take a few steps back.... and re-evaluate the situation. Let's not bicker needlessly, and let's use our energy wisely and efficiently.

We have more important battles to fight than this.

Seek the HIGHER PURPOSE of Life.

[sui generis]

144. we have many battles - you are partially right

the argument in this forum is an outgrowth of how certain forms of christianity want to change the face of government and fundamentally change America.

These same people don't care about deformed babies if they are heathen babies. This particular thread sucks but the bigger battle is not about "fuck christians and fuck atheists", it's about how religion in government changes America into something that the rest of the world will be pitching depleted uranium at in a few years.

The people who argue here argue for progress on many fronts, not just religion. don't pigeonhole us.

[masaka___]

168. fair enough...

[lawladyprof]

143. No, not ignorant goat herders, but a product of its context

I think the men (and in a patriarchal society it would have been men) who "wrote" the Bible were brilliant. You have to set it in the context of their time and circumstances. To the extent that it made a cohesive group of a small, nomadic, relatively powerless tribe it was brilliant and many of its strictures made sense in a pre-scientific time and many of its rules represented social advances for that time and place. That was a cruel time in the human experience (I'm not sure we've made much progress) and it reflected the ethos of its time but to some extent it represented progress in the ordering of human affairs.

And like many works of literature it does contain timeless, eternal truths, but to me, those are encapsulated in metaphor and allegory.

[mike_c]

149. not disrespectful at all

Evolution is a real event that happens every day. It needs no "proof"-- it's directly observable. It's the theories about mechanisms of evolution (natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, and so on) that are exceedingly well supported by empirical evidence-- so much so that biologists consider them axiomatic. Likewise for theories about the consequences of evolution, e.g. speciation.

on edit: oops, I re-read your statement and edited my subject line.

[DownNotOut]

158. Religion is a

money making scam pointed at people not able to think for themselves.

DownNotOut

[superconnected]

164. Is that baby alive or dead

what the HECK is that picture of that baby?

[DrWeird]

165. Oh, you mean like astrology. And pyramid schemes.

nt

[UncleSepp]

171. How about this rewrite?

"Darwin's theory of natural selection has been repeatedly proven *according to the scientific method*. Evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory, or explanation, for how organisms change over many generations and for how new kinds of organisms arise. The Judeo-Christian religious explanation of the creation of organisms by the divine word is worthy of being taught as a part of *arts and humanities for its importance in understanding the culture and civilization of predominantly Jewish and Christian societies*, but should not be considered science, since it *cannot be examined using the scientific method of experimental testing of its hypotheses*."

The argument can also be made that attempting to force the works of divinity into the framework of science lessens the divine, inappropriately placing man's reason above the Unknowable. There are solid religious reasons for not putting creation stories into the science class, and in my opinion, anyone wanting to fight the fight to keep religious creation stories separate from scientific creation theories ought to learn more about both the scientific and the religious arguments for that distinctness.

[Perky]

172. The Lack of religious tolerance on DU is somewhat astounnding at times

Whether or not one chooses to believe in the Creation should not be treated with the disdain these polling results shown heretofore.

To suggest that anyone who believes in the Creation story is an ignorant boob only reinforces middle america's view of Democrats in General... that we are areligious and amoral.

I realize that the wingnuts have made conservatism a litmus test for Christianity. But that is hardly enough reason to call all that choose to believe in a higher power: ignoranant.

I trust that we will be a little more open than the fundies: lest we confirm in action and deed what they say about us.

Perhaps you do not care: I do. And like it or not Middle America does.

[DrWeird]

174. Lack of scientific knowledge on DU is somewhat astounding.

"To suggest that anyone who believes in the Creation story is an ignorant boob only reinforces middle america's view of Democrats in General... that we are areligious and amoral."

People who believe in the biblical story of Creation literally are ignorant boobs. No way around it. How middle america feels about that is irrelevant. If they think that makes us areligious and amoral, well they're just being ignorant boobs.

[Perky]

175. so the 80%+ of Americans who belive in God are all just

loony toons?


hmmm and how is it if there is no GOd.. that Christianity has endured for 2,000 years?

[DrWeird]

176. You're confusing Creationism with Christianity.

All Creationists are Christian, only some Christians are Creationists.

Very few christians believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Evolution says nothing about the existence of God. If you had a proper high school level biology education you'd know that.

Are you seriously conjecturing that since Christianity has endured 2,000 years that it's proof of the existence of God? How do you feel about Hinduism?

[Perky]

178. Ummm NO

the fact that 89% beleive does not authenticate it.. the pint is that the lack of tolearance of other beliefs is just as rampant on this site, then in many Christian Circles. It is hypocritical in the extreme to on the one hand say that people who bleive that God created the world in seven days are boobs while in the same breath criticizing the Church for bein intolerant of diversity.

I agree Christianity and Creationism are not the same thin..But Creationism has always been a poor attempt by the Church to remain relevant in the public square.

As a Christian I freely admit that I struggle with the Story of Creation..Yet at the same time....and this is what is more imporant to me... I believe that it is entirely possible that the struggles I have with the story or because I am a mere mortal and so great are the mysteries of God.


I have more trouble believeing that a loving God would allow error in the translation of the interpretation of the Sacred text, then I do that the Garden and the creation is nothing more than myth created 4,000 years ago.

[Imperialism Inc.]

186. Who wrote the book of Genesis?

Was he an old man or young? Rich , poor, in between? When did he write it exactly? Was it just one person or is it a collection of writings? Was it a person of power in the society? Did he have any agendas that we know of? Who decided that the story he wrote did indeed come from God originally and wasn't just something he made up?

Why would you place such stock in a writing that you have no idea where and when it even came from? Very strange to we non-believers. I see no reason to not label a person who puts writings of unknown origins above mountains of evidence an ignorant boob.

[DrWeird]

191. Oh, I don't think it's hypocritical at all.

Creationism isn't a religion. It's a pseudoscience. It makes certain claims about the natural world. Those claims have been proven false. Therefore, if you were to believe it, you'd be a "boob." The fact that you base this belief on a religious text is irrelevant.

Now, there's plenty of "christians' (although I wouldn't really consider them christians) who think that homosexuality is a sin. They do so because of a specific verse in the Bible. Nevertheless, these people are bigots and the fact that they base their belief on a religious text is also irrelevant.

[Cheswick2.0]

202. WRONG...all christians are creationists.... and so are religious Jews and

Muslims too I beleive. We believe God created the universe. We just don't think he did it in seven days.

[DrWeird]

205. Bullshit.

Creationism is an American evangelical movement designed to remove the teaching of Evolution from public schools.

Even the Pope has admitted Evolution took place.

[slutticus]

173. Whether or not it is disrespectful is irrelevant.

Concepts which have no basis in science should not be taught in science class PERIOD.

[Cheswick2.0]

203. I agree

but that was not the point of this thread. The point of this thread was flame bait.

[disconnected]

179. nope not disrespectful at all

however the Bible can be taken literally by someone, and they can also accept that evolution is a scientific fact.
The Bible does state that man was created in God's image, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that man stayed in God's image...or even what God's image is.
And also it would be utterly STUPID for one to be God and create beings who could not change and adapt with changing situations and environments.
To say that God created us as we exist today is an assumption that the Bible does not support.
Think of the Bible as a simplified science and life book...kinda like a guide to what's past, present, and future for dummies, in a language that it's readers might comprehend, if they read it for themselves.
You also have to read it in the correct context to understand it, not just a few verses, and then run with it.

[gordianot]

180. Evolution yes. As Darwin stated it ....no. n/t

[sangh0]

188. I say "No, not disrespectful"

.

[Liberal Classic]

189. I vote other on "semantic" grounds

By definition, scientific theories are not proved. To the contrary, scientific theories may only be disproven. Furthermore, scientific theories must be "falsifiable" meaning that they must be structured such that tests may be devised which disprove the validity of the theory. Many examples of microevolution have been observed and documented, supporting evolutionary theory. Microevolution is observable, measurable, and reproducible. However, this does not mean that Darwin's theory (or more correctly the modern synthesis of Darwin's theory of natural selection, Mendel's theory of inheritance, and various modern theories of molecular evolution proposed since the discovery and description of the DNA molecule) has been proved. It is certianly supported by an immense body of evidence, but there is always the possibility that a new theory will come along which more accurately describes observation. Sometimes new techologies extend the boundry of what is observable and measurable, such as what DNA sequencing have done for genetics. When things like that happens, the current theory will be adapted or thrown out in favor of the new framework.

Judging from your comments in this thread, I would say you have as much "faith" in the theory as believers have in their scripture.

[quiet.american]

193. Well....

My opinion is there's a part of this statement that will probably always push the buttons of someone of the opposite view. The part of the statement I'm referring to is --

"The Judeo-Christian creation story is worthy of being taught as a part of religious mythology...."

I could be wrong, but it seems to me the average folk of religious "faith" or "belief," do not consider themselves to be subscribing to religious mythology. In a sense, the word "mythology" here functions to stamp religion as merely "a story."

Now, not to get into whether the stuff of religion is real or not here, just to say that the overall tone of the statement could come across as condescending and that's what would probably push someone's buttons to label it "disrespectful."

Even if the speaker were to simply say "The Judeo-Christian creation story should not be considered science since it has no basis in scientific fact" -- it seems to me that is really just stating what is and could not be construed as disrespectful.

[nini]

194. no... anyone with a real brain knows evolution is correct

.

[robcon]

196. It's an incorrect statement, but it is not disrespectful

Evolution is a theory that is extremely well-documented with enormous evidence. But it is not fact. It posits two forces that move species: random variation, and natural selection.

We have to open our eyes to the fact that further evidence could change the theory. Like Newton's theory of gravitation, which many people treated for almost 400 years as "fact," it could be overturned by new evidence or a new "Einstein" to provide a new model of the origin of the species.

That does not diminish the predictive and explanatory power of the theory of evolution.

[Cheswick2.0]

197. well of course it is disrespectful

because you mean it to be.

[arwalden]

198. Oh Brother!

:eyes:

I didn't know you were a mindreader too!