What Americans believe. Darwin help us all.

[Lionel Mandrake]

A recent Harris poll includes some startling statistics:

... the great majority (82%) of American adults believe in God ... Large majorities also believe in miracles (76%), heaven (75%), that Jesus is God or the Son of God (73%), in angels (72%), the survival of the soul after death (71%), and in the resurrection of Jesus (70%). ... Less than half (45%) of adults believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution ...

Born-again Christians are much more likely than Catholics or all Protestants to believe in God (97%); heaven (97%); the Resurrection (97%); miracles (95%); angels (95%); the virgin birth (92%); the survival of the soul (91%); hell (89%); and the devil (89%). ... Born-again Christians are also much more likely to believe in creationism (68%), and much less likely to believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution (16%).

The poll results include much more detailed statistics for Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, as well as for Born-again Christians (whom I called "morans" for being least likely to believe in evolution).

Read more: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris_Poll_2009_12_15.pdf

[Capn Sunshine]

1. I have personally met and seen Angels.

Shared many things with them

[Lionel Mandrake]

2. Angels or devils?

The "angels" have committed such crimes as racketeering, drug trafficking, arms trafficking, assault, extortion, money laundering, murder, prostitution and trafficking in stolen goods. They have no use for cops, and vice versa.

[fegi052li]

3. simply frightening

but sadly not too surprising...

[astral]

4. Which part is the moronic part? (or, excuse, me, the Moranic part)

Believing in:
--Miracles
--Heaven
--Jesus
--Soul Survival
--Resurrection
--Darwin's Theory of Evolution (as taught by Darwin or the School System?)
--Creationism
--God
--Angels
--Hell
--Virgin birth
--Ghosts
--Astrology
--Reincarnation
--The Devil
--Basic Elements of Christianity(?)
--UFOs
--Witches

UFOs are real, not to say they are spaceships, but people have seen "Un-Identified Flying Objects." For REALS! Witches are real -- we probably have some witches right here on this board willing to stand up and admit they exist.

I am certain, however, that Miracles do not exist.

I am pretty sure the only correction answer, according to the OP, is "Darwin's Theory of Evolution."

I am pretty certain that:
--We don't know where came from
--We don't know where we are going
--To wonder about it and marvel about the possibilities of what the truth is can only be human.

I wouldn't believe in an angel either, if I'd never seen one. I never seen Jesus, a Ghost, a Witch (knowingly, not in person, anyway), the Devil, nor have I ever seen for certain a re-incarnated being, although I am fairly certain I have met a few of them. I have been to Hell and I have seen Miracles and I have seen the science of Astrology show its possibilities.

And my Soul has Survived. . . . up to now.

I'm sure it won't surivive this post, though.

[Lionel Mandrake]

5. For those (if any) who don't already know,

"Morans is a long standing DU in joke"

as Forkboy pointed out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7338522&mesg_id=7339933

And yes, I think it's moranic not to accept the theory espoused by Darwin in 1859:



Among biologists there is an overwhelming consensus in favor of both the fact (descent with modifications) and theory (natural selection) of organic evolution. The only exceptions I am aware of are afflicted with some fundamentalist form of religion.

[GoCubsGo]

7. And, the reason there is overwhelming consensus among biologists is....

...that there is overwhelming evidence in support of Darwin's theory, all thoroughly tested by the Scientific Method. There are mountains of evidence proving evolution. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate the existence of any god, angels, devil, Heaven, Hell, ghosts, etc.

[Lionel Mandrake]

12. Well stated.

Darwin knew nothing about genetics, but when genetics came into the picture, the theory of natural selection did not go extinct. Later on, the discoveries of the structure of DNA and the genetic code only bolstered natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution.

In addition to the kinds of evidence known to Darwin, we now have molecular evolution, and natural selection is stronger than ever.

The theory of evolution by natural selection will not be overthrown by any such nonsense as creationism or "intelligent design" .

[Major Nikon]

6. Sweet Jesus!

There's no hope for America.

Collectively we are dumber than a stump.

[GoCubsGo]

8. I am surprised by the Catholic Church numbers.

The Church accepts Evolution as valid. It is taught in Catholic schools and universities. I suspect politics has something to do with it. Many Catholics are conservatives, so I'm betting they are influenced by the Buybull-toting wingnuts among them.

[pintobean]

9. 42

The answer to everything. I don't think you are likely to have answers that are any better than most people's. Why bring your faith bashing to the lounge?

[Lionel Mandrake]

13. You'll be happy to know that ...

just as Adam and Eve were evicted from the garden,

my evil thread has been cast out of the lounge. :evilgrin:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

14. ROFLMAO!

Well played, sir, very well played!

:evilgrin:

[pintobean]

15. Tickled to death

I don't know Adam and Eve. Did they get tossed out of Madison Square Garden?

[Lionel Mandrake]

16. Here they are.

Adam and Eve, also known as The Longstones or the Devil's Quoits:



"Adam fell over in 1911 and was re-erected (incorrectly) by Maud Cunnington in 1912. Cunnington also found a Beaker inhumation of a middle-aged man buried close by the stone which is considered to postdate the megalith."

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Longstones

[dmallind]

10. Slight improvement here - 72% of Christians believing in Hell is down a bit

Still about 70% more than our resident apologetics fans try to pretend of course - that it's just a fundy fringe who want to see the rest of us fry for trillions of years, but an improvement from the 76% last time I saw data. Of course slightly MORE of them believe in the Devil here (another supposedly fringe belief to DU Xians), which is usually a bit down from Hell belief. Presumably some think he's roaming the earth, quite possibly in DC.

[LAGC]

11. Hey, over 90% used to believe in God not too long ago.

We're making progress, however slowly.

[Deep13]

17. "... the great majority (82%) of American adults believe in God"

So those who admit to non-belief are up to 18%. That's nearly one in five. That's a larger percentage than any single denomination except Roman Catholic.

PS
Checking the details, it seems the nonbelief is split between "nonbelief" and "not sure." It's kind of like how on census forms lower class people are split between "lower class" and "working class" the latter being a euphemism for those who are reluctant to identify themselves as "lower class." Belief is an affirmative condition. "Not sure" is a lack of affirmative belief and, ergo, a nonbelief. It certainly falls short of admitting that there is no god, but it is still a lack of belief like agnosticism or weak-atheism.

[astral]

18. The point of my post was to list all the topic items in the OP post

to prove a point. I think Sarah Palin was inadvertently left out.

No I don't believe in Sarah Palin.

Now, you may not believe in witch-CRAFT being real, or functional, like homeopathy and such, but you can not say that witches do not exist.

Witches very much do exist.

Just for example.

And I think there is plenty of evidence of an unseen creative force, which some choose to call God.

Anybody who does not believe exactly as the OP posted in all the topics listed by myself is a complete "moran" and an idiot. My whole point in posting the first response was just to point out that this is what the OP is listing in addition to the Darwin stuff.

I am not opposed to Darwin, however, the 'theory of evolution' goes beyond what Darwin had to say.

Darwin wasn't an atheist.

[Lionel Mandrake]

19. Besides putting words in my mouth,

astral is quite wrong about Darwin.

1. Darwin's theory of evolution WAS natural selection. This is what his magnum opus was all about. It certainly does not go beyond what Darwin had to say.

2. Darwin lost his faith gradually. At the end of his life, his views can reasonably be summarized as either atheism or a very skeptical agnosticism. Nobody has to take my word for this. DUers can decide for themselves after reading some excerpts from Darwin's autobiography (not published in its entirety until 1958):

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, — that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible, do miracles become, — that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, — that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, — that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitness; — by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories." ...

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last was complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct." ...

"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." ...

"The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws."

To read more, go to Wikipedia and search for "Charles_Darwin's_religious_views". (When I tried to give a direct link, the DU software messed up the apostrophe in the URL.)

[deacon_sephiroth]

20. and to think it's the year twenty freaking eleven

We still have a loooong way to go, but those numbers are actually looking up.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[NMMNG]

22. You claim everyone should believe in your god and blindly obey his laws

yet you denounce religious fanaticism and "religious nuts". This has to be a Poe.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Silent3]

24. A belief is a good thing if it makes people behave nicely...

...without regard to whether the belief itself is true?

If belief in Santa Claus motivates a child to do his homework, because his/her parents said Santa would only bring presents if all of his/her homework got done, then no one should worry or fuss or object to belief in Santa Claus, because hey, it gets results?

And what's the point of the question in the title of your post, "So....personal opinions are bad because?"? You ask that as if someone had just denounced all personal opinions, which is of course a ridiculous interpretation of the OP. Or maybe you're asking that question as if someone had just attacked the right of people to hold different opinions, but again, that would also be a ridiculous interpretation of the OP.

That said, there is nothing automatically wonderful about any and all opinions. While the criteria for judging opinions can also be subject to opinion, making it very difficult to pin down the quality of opinions, that doesn't make distinctions in quality disappear, that doesn't automatically elevate all opinions to being great opinions or make the worth of all opinions indistinguishably equal. An opinion based on careful observation and reasoning will generally be a much better opinion that a largely unconsidered opinion, perhaps held for no better reason than having assimilated the opinion from one's family or one's peers.

[dmallind]

25. Actually *I'd* answer yes to your opening question, with one caveat

A false belief that makes people behave nicely IS a good thing. Good that is as long as it doesn't make them also behave evilly. For example if Christianity in practice boiled down to the two things that its titular head said were most important...

Matthew 22:36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Then yes indeed it would be a good thing, given the definition of God agreed to by all but one or two of DU believers. Why would it be a good thing to love a non-existent god with all your heart and soul? Because nobody would be any worse off for this, and those neighbors would be greatly helped - massive felicife calculus gain. The only harm is perhaps some wasted time for believers. They would not even suffer disappointment since they only expect to encounter God after death, and would be much fulfilled, while helping and caring for their fellow man in keeping the second commanment.

But that's hypothetical. Why ISN'T the false belief a positive thing? Two reasons really; a) few believers actually take this, supposedly the most important utterance of their founding deity, all that seriously; b) Most who DO take it seriously seem to love the genocidal, touchy insecure OT god with all their heart, and believe that they can love their neighbor best by keeping him from the many and varied risks of Hell more than, say, offering financial or volunteer assistance. In short then it does NOT, overall, make them behave nicely. Now before the resident believers get offended, no the number of believers who actually follow these greatest commandments positively is not zero. It's just too few to outweigh those who follow them in harmful ways, and both are eclipsed manifold by those who don't follow them at all.

But yes, a false belief that did, in reality and in totality, make people behave nicely would be a good thing. The false belief that criminals are usually caught and punished does so for a start.

[Silent3]

30. That's a bit too "ends justifies the means" for me

Even if a false belief were to foster good results, and never foster bad results apart from the falsity of the belief itself, truth itself has value to me. People not clearly understanding the world, not understanding the limitations of their knowledge, not acknowledging shades of meaning and uncertainty and risk are in and of themselves a form of harm in my opinion.

The value of truth isn't absolute to me. A lie that would save the planet, even a big lie, could be something I'd regretfully accept. And I clearly accept "little" lies all the time, since I'm willing to tell them myself on occasion for no better reason than to, say, protect myself from embarrassment or to guard a birthday surprise.

But protecting people's questionable beliefs from exposure to doubt, or worse, fostering beliefs you consider false (or highly unlikely to be true), simply because you're hoping for a beneficial end result such as reduced crime, seems condescendingly paternalistic to me.

[dmallind]

34. Certainly can be seen that way, and remember this is a hypothetical

as religious belief does NOT make people behave more nicely than the lack thereof (the oft-mentioned underrepresentation of atheists in prison, QED). But IF it did I would not see its propagation and even protection as harm. I am, above all in philosophy, a utilitarian of the act/rule type. That means I take moral positions that typically minimize harm or maximize benefit as guidelines (rule), but am willing to happily make a different decision if the foreseeable outcome would be negative if the rule stood (act). The ends justifying the means is a negatively loaded phrase, but is at the heart of any kind of utilitarianism, mine included. And it's not a bad thing when stripped of the negative aphorism.

The rule we are talking about here is essentially lying. Lying by omission and commission, to ourselves and to others, to maintain a putative religious belief that ensured beneficial behavior (the rule), excluding it only where the moral agent needs no such lies to maintain beneficial behavior (the act). Lying is certainly harmful as a rule. It fosters mistrust when discovered, it misallocates resources and attention when believed, and so on. I'm against lying as a rule. But there are many cases where we can not only justify lying but demonstrate that telling the truth is monstrously evil. Let's risk Godwin here and start with "Yes, Herr Eichmann, I know where the Jews are hiding - they are in Schindler's basement" as a truth that would be evil to tell. What I would suggest is that the truth "Yes Mr. Believer I know that you only feed the homeless and volunteer for Habitat for Humanity because of your faith in Jesus, but here's proof it's nothing more than syncretic folk tales from different traditions, and you are doing all this to please a non-existent god and get a place in a Heaven no more real than Valhalla". IF it really were Mr. Believer's faith that made him act so, and IF Mr. Believer were a typical theist, that would also be an evil truth to tell. Certainly by my actions you can tell I do not believe those IFs to be true, but if I did, you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be as quiet and secret an atheist as any DU believer would wish.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[jeepnstein]

26. What's Evolution got to do with it?

More and more I see the whole evolution debate getting wrapped up in terms of God/No God. That suits both extremes quite nicely but doesn't do a thing for those of us who can read and write a little bit. Some evangelicals see evolution as an affront to their religion because they absolutely require God to play by their rules. Some of us just accept that we'll never know it all and marvel at what kind of God could make a little bit out of order out of the seeming chaos of the universe. The way I see it the debate is really fueled by know-it-alls who are no different from the "stiff necked" folks that Jesus railed about back in the day.

The account of creation in Genesis does many things. It sets the tone for our relationship with God. It gives us a few basic rules to govern our society. It even manages to more or less comply with the "laws of nature" as long as we don't make God punch a time clock. Not bad for a manuscript from the Bronze Age. Anyone who tries to turn Genesis into a science text is a fool and is missing the point entirely.

[David Sky]

27. "It gives us a few basic rules to govern our society."?? Like..for example.

eating from the tree of knowledge bans humans from a garden of Eden, and is the original sin against a God ?

Or that a woman's body comes from the rib of a man? "Complies with the laws of nature"? How so?

Sorry, I don't see anything in Genesis that relates to the world I live in, nor to the beliefs and values I hold.

[edhopper]

28. This response

shows an incredible lack in the understanding of basic science.

[jeepnstein]

31. Then educate me.

If you would be so kind.

[edhopper]

32. No thanks

not my job.

[jeepnstein]

33. Pretty much what I expected.

[edhopper]

35. This sentence

"The way I see it the debate is really fueled by know-it-alls who are no different from the "stiff necked" folks that Jesus railed about back in the day. "
Leads me to refrain from entering a dialog who considers people with a scientific frame of mind "Know it alls" and thinks God is the answer to all mysteries.

[David Sky]

36. MY respsonse ? Are you serious?

What "basic science" is described in Genesis? Please elaborate ONE scintilla of science to be found in Genesis!

Thanks!

[edhopper]

38. You have to look over on the right

My response was to jeepnstein's post #26, not your post #27, it just follows it because we both responded.
So unbunch your shorts :D

[David Sky]

37. If the Bible mentioned evolution, all religious Christians would embrace it, but I like

what some other poster stated on another thread here today.

It seems like the concept of evolution eats at the very identity of true believers, and assaults them with logic and facts which they must fight very hard to avoid looking at.

It only took 5-8 million years for Ancestor apes to become human beings, but it took literally thousands of millions of years for single celled organisms to become apes, but the same laws of physics, chemistry, and biology work on both sequences of evolutionary history.

One cannot accept one without accepting the other sequence of events, so 6000 years, (roughly the time when half the dog and cat and farm animal sub-species actually have been bred "evolved with human intervention"), is about all the religious mind can tolerate.

[Lionel Mandrake]

39. There aren't as many YECs as there used to be.

Most of the former Young Earth Creationists (YECs) now promote "intelligent Design" as their wedge for keeping high school students as stupid as possible.