Happy Atheist Forum

55% of those who participated in this poll (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17554713/site/newsweek/#anc_nwk_070319_Evolution) still think the theory of evolution can coexist with religion, while 39% say it can't, and 6% are unsure.

Nothing earth-shattering, but I do wish the number of "No"s was a lot higher than the rest.  Until science and religion are forced to do battle, nothing will change.  I agree completely with Sam Harris's thoughts on religious moderates (you can read some of them here (http://richarddawkins.net/article,740,Gods-dupes,Sam-Harris)).  It's a shame people have become so good at compartmentalizing these things, in order to live with them both simultaneously.  I'm normally not pro-conflict, but this area is a big exception.  These are conflicting ideas, and should be treated as such, regardless of whose feelings might be hurt in the process.

Most religious people I know who accept evolutionary theory either hold some idea of guided evolution or hold the "god set things in motion and now is hands off" idea.

Yeah, but it always amuses me that this omnipotent, all-powerful being decides to do virtually everything the hard (or at least complicated) way.  Why would He bother to set such a long, convoluted process in motion when he could just as easily (and much more quickly) have simply created each creature spontaneously?  It's ridiculous when you think about it.  I don't care how "mysterious" His ways are, it's just plain silly.

Yeah, no one ever said rationalizations were necessarily rational.

Haha, my personal favorite answer for inexplicable behaviour on the part of god is that he did it to create a "test of faith".

Honestly, religion hanging around, even coexisting with evolution, doesn't bother me nearly as much as someone proposing that we teach kids evolution is wrong.  What Squid said here,

Quote from: "Squid"Most religious people I know who accept evolutionary theory either hold some idea of guided evolution or hold the "god set things in motion and now is hands off" idea.

seems to hold for Americans in general.  Here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml) is a 2005 poll showing 51% of Americans believe god created humans, and another 30% believe that humans evolved but with god's guidance.  These are the numbers that really make my teeth itch.

I'd like to see the number of yes votes go a lot higher, not lower.  A person can be religious and accept evolution in full...there is nothing about evolution that automatically pushes a deity out of the picture and it's about time the public realize that and quit trying to teach ID or pull evolution from schools based on warped views of the theory.  Science and realigion shouldn't be viewed as tied together but that doesn't mean we need to make people choose one or the other.

theism and evolution are not logically incompatible, but i think that people who claim to believe the bible literally cannot in good conscience claim that macroevolution is also true.

Jesus loves you lol

I have a theory that most who voted "yes" consider it more of a "live and let live" question...

Oil and water can also coexist.... we all know how that goes, though.

It's a shame that polls like that even get put out there. There was no clarification of what was meant by "religion" at all. I guess it was assumed that all people are American and christian.

That poll is worth absolutely nothing except to serve as a bad example of polling.

Quote from: "MrE2Me"55% of those who participated in this poll (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17554713/site/newsweek/#anc_nwk_070319_Evolution) still think the theory of evolution can coexist with religion, while 39% say it can't, and 6% are unsure.

Nothing earth-shattering, but I do wish the number of "No"s was a lot higher than the rest.  Until science and religion are forced to do battle, nothing will change.

If science is the only front on which atheism can attack Christianity, it cannot succeed. It is a complete myth that science contradicts Christianity, spread about by atheists and, most of all, fundamentalists, who know very well that their case is a complete fraud. Never mind science, Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1, if they are both understood to be literal truth. Fundamentalists must accept either that God is a nincompoop, or his revelation is allegorical in these chapters at least.

Quote from: "Anonymous"

Quote from: "MrE2Me"55% of those who participated in this poll (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17554713/site/newsweek/#anc_nwk_070319_Evolution) still think the theory of evolution can coexist with religion, while 39% say it can't, and 6% are unsure.

Nothing earth-shattering, but I do wish the number of "No"s was a lot higher than the rest.  Until science and religion are forced to do battle, nothing will change.

If science is the only front on which atheism can attack Christianity, it cannot succeed. It is a complete myth that science contradicts Christianity, spread about by atheists and, most of all, fundamentalists, who know very well that their case is a complete fraud. Never mind science, Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1, if they are both understood to be literal truth. Fundamentalists must accept either that God is a nincompoop, or his revelation is allegorical in these chapters at least.

I'm not sure from your answer where you stand... but are you brave enough to use your name when stating an opinion?  And science may not be the only front on which we can attack Christianity, but it IS the most effective.  

Dinosaurs on the ark?  A man making a meal for 5000 from a few loaves of bread and some fish?  A man rising from the dead?  The entire creatin story vs. the big bang?

Science can argue against each and every one of those quite effectively.

Quote from: "Anonymous"If science is the only front on which atheism can attack Christianity, it cannot succeed. It is a complete myth that science contradicts Christianity, spread about by atheists and, most of all, fundamentalists, who know very well that their case is a complete fraud. Never mind science, Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1, if they are both understood to be literal truth. Fundamentalists must accept either that God is a nincompoop, or his revelation is allegorical in these chapters at least.

Science and... reason. I don't think of it as "attack" so much as "mock" and sometimes, "get offended".

Sure, you could try and draw some paralells and say that the dinosaurs were just an experiment to God so he didn't feel that it was necessary to include that in his book... Or you could point out that it's a bunch of crap and people have been fighting science for years because they're worried that their power will dissapear (power that they only have due to the fear of Hell that they spread). For example, the sun does not revolve around the earth... there is more to the universe than us super important humans.  :roll:

Ditto on what rlrose said, too.

The ark story is likewise taken as allegory, so the issue of dinosaurs does not apply.

QuoteA man making a meal for 5000 from a few loaves of bread and some fish?  A man rising from the dead?

The point of these deeds is that they are miraculous.

Quote from: "rdm"The ark story is likewise taken as allegory, so the issue of dinosaurs does not apply.

QuoteA man making a meal for 5000 from a few loaves of bread and some fish?  A man rising from the dead?

The point of these deeds is that they are miraculous.

Funny isn't it that those who claim the bible to be "the word of God" can choose to call any part of it "an allegory" (I thought he word 'parable' was used in the bible to denote allegoric content - seems like the book is full of parabollocks!)
Feeding the 5000 is only as 'miraculous' as StarTrek's food replicator - both the fruits of an imaginative mind! Not so miraculous, surely, as the fact that it only takes one book to feed millions with mind-boggling garbage!

Quote from: "rdm"The ark story is likewise taken as allegory, so the issue of dinosaurs does not apply.

QuoteA man making a meal for 5000 from a few loaves of bread and some fish?  A man rising from the dead?

The point of these deeds is that they are miraculous.

Yes, that IS the point... Science doesn't write off events as "miracles", it either explains things or it says that it doesn't know. Gah, I'm just feeding the troll, right?

The way the bible paints heaven was a place that existed in the clouds. If you looked up and prayed to god, he would answer you. When you die your soul rose to heaven and you lived there forever. Your soul, "the thing that is you", rose to the "place" called heaven. Well science went looking for heaven in the clouds and it is not there. Heaven is not above the earth or out in space. Now heaven seems to be outside of space and time. Why is that? Why are images of angels seen flying around in clouds with wings? Wouldn't images of angels documented in the bible be the actual images of angels? If angels do not have wings then why are they depicted with wings? If the earth took longer than 6 days to create, then why didn't the bible say that? Seems science has pushed god further and further away? The idea of rising has become metaphoric now, but it at one time was taken literally. Your soul really did rise up to heaven or went down into hell. And what of the soul? Where is it? A human is the following: life form, organs, cells, molecules, atoms, and quarks. What is the soul made of and how is it bound the human body? From the vantage point inside an atom, would the soul even know it was in a life form? The real view of reality is one without divine influence. Real things are things that can be measured even though they seem invisible. The metaphysical only exists in our minds. Biblical foreknowledge has been discounted time and time again so it would seem that science, over religion, should be the best tool to answer life's most fundamental questions. Things happen for a reason and seem to work just fine with out god. Like Carl says "a universe with no edge in space, no beginning or end in time, and nothing for a Creator to do."

Quote from: "rdm"The ark story is likewise taken as allegory, so the issue of dinosaurs does not apply.

QuoteA man making a meal for 5000 from a few loaves of bread and some fish?  A man rising from the dead?

The point of these deeds is that they are miraculous.

Says a religious person who has been brainwashed to believe that which is in the bible.  Why do you believe a man made a meal for 5000 people from such meager supplies but yet you say the ark story is allegory?  I know many people in my real life, right here in my little town, who believe the ark story is not only very factual, but that there WERE dinosaurs on the ark (albeit, in baby or egg form so they'd fit...  :lol:  :roll: ).  Why is YOUR belief that it's allegory any more valid than theirs that it's not?

There ARE miracles in this world...they are unexplained occurences, such as my conceiving a child when modern medicine said it wouldn't happen (yes, science can be wrong... medicine is not an exact science).  But I'm not attributing that to a god just because there's not a ready answer.

If you can say that the ark is allegory, I can say the fish/bread and rising from the dead stories are allegory (or fairy tale, you choose) as well.

I don't see how anyone can believe that the 'ark' story is even remotely factual.  Nor do I understand the point if it is not.  If it didn't happen, then in what fashion is it "allegorical"?  What, if anything, actually did happen? And if it is a total fabrication (as seems likely) then what is the 'allegorical' point?  The whole business seems ultimately pointless to me.

The point of the ark story is to show that someone would trust god and do the impossible if god requests it. Like the story of santa clause or paul bunyan there may have been a real person, but the real story of their life is no where close to the fable.

I'm sorry, but if "god" spoke to me and told me to build a huge boat so that I, my family and two of every species would survive a worldwide flood that would wipe out every other living thing on earth, I'd tell him to go take a flying leap.  I don't participate in genocide... I don't CARE who it is who asks me to do that.

Hitler did it... maybe he was the second coming, we'll never know.

Jesus had his little stories that he told... but the Bible actually says that they are STORIES. As for that ark crud, the Bible goes on from there with its "history" with killing the goat and so on.

Quote from: "jcm"The point of the ark story is to show that someone would trust god and do the impossible if god requests it.

Ah.  Okay - I guess that could be considered of allegorical value.

Luckily for me, no gods have asked me to do anything.  Sweet - I'm sailing free and easy.....

SteveS, you must not be listening hard enough! If you try really really really really really really really really really really really really really really hard you will hear him talking to you. With that same about of effort you might also hear a message from your toaster that tells you to crap your pants on the bus at high noon this Thursday.

How did you know my toaster told me that?!?!?!?!

HAHAHA! I feel sorry for the poor guy sitting next to you on the bus. Gross!

Quote from: "rlrose328"

Quote from: "rdm"The ark story is likewise taken as allegory, so the issue of dinosaurs does not apply.

QuoteA man making a meal for 5000 from a few loaves of bread and some fish?  A man rising from the dead?

The point of these deeds is that they are miraculous.

Says a religious person who has been brainwashed to believe that which is in the bible.

Perhaps. Is that an adult way to represent atheism? The claim for miracles in the Bible is quite irrelevant in this context. The believers' position, or a believers' position, is that Genesis 1-11 is allegory, and that real chronology starts with Abram. The atheist must deal with that claimed distinction, not the claims for miracles, unless the only aim is to debunk fundamentalists, which other believers have as their aim also. And if that distinction cannot be shown to be a false one, there is no purpose in invoking science or practical considerations onto what could be allegory. Earlier generations of atheists did not make fools of themselves by pressing this objection.

Quote from: "rdm"Perhaps. Is that an adult way to represent atheism? The claim for miracles in the Bible is quite irrelevant in this context. The believers' position, or a believers' position, is that Genesis 1-11 is allegory, and that real chronology starts with Abram. The atheist must deal with that claimed distinction, not the claims for miracles, unless the only aim is to debunk fundamentalists, which other believers have as their aim also. And if that distinction cannot be shown to be a false one, there is no purpose in invoking science or practical considerations onto what could be allegory. Earlier generations of atheists did not make fools of themselves by pressing this objection.

rdm...the objection was to your claim that it was a real miracle and your claim that you can know what was meant to be allegorical and what was not when few Christians seem to agree.

If you are going to leave the forum for over six months then return, you could at least return in a good mood.  

Quote from: "rdm"Perhaps. Is that an adult way to represent atheism?

In describing how not all Christians are the same, you lump all atheists together, expecting there is a way to "represent atheism". I must admit to being a bit amused by this, with all due respect.

Quote from: "rdm"The claim for miracles in the Bible is quite irrelevant in this context. The believers' position, or a believers' position, is that Genesis 1-11 is allegory, and that real chronology starts with Abram. The atheist must deal with that claimed distinction, not the claims for miracles, unless the only aim is to debunk fundamentalists, which other believers have as their aim also. And if that distinction cannot be shown to be a false one, there is no purpose in invoking science or practical considerations onto what could be allegory. Earlier generations of atheists did not make fools of themselves by pressing this objection.

How about this: if Genesis 1-11 was an allegory, from whence did the allegory come? Were there supposedly people there? If so, that contradicts our scientifically verified understanding of the timeline of development of life on Earth, specifically intelligent human life. Was it fiction? If so, then all the Bible is suspect. Was it's source supposedly divine? That's a miracle, and thus we take issue. Please tell me if I'm missing an option.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"

Quote from: "rdm"Perhaps. Is that an adult way to represent atheism? The claim for miracles in the Bible is quite irrelevant in this context. The believers' position, or a believers' position, is that Genesis 1-11 is allegory, and that real chronology starts with Abram. The atheist must deal with that claimed distinction, not the claims for miracles, unless the only aim is to debunk fundamentalists, which other believers have as their aim also. And if that distinction cannot be shown to be a false one, there is no purpose in invoking science or practical considerations onto what could be allegory. Earlier generations of atheists did not make fools of themselves by pressing this objection.

Quoterdm...the objection was to your claim that it was a real miracle

Where did you read that?

Quoteand your claim that you can know what was meant to be allegorical and what was not

Where did you read that?

Amazing, what people imagine.

Quotewhen few Christians seem to agree.

Most Christians agree with each other, as it happens.

QuoteIf you are going to leave the forum for over six months then return, you could at least return in a good mood.   :D Is it that long? But having one's words misrepresented is hardly what will make one's day.

Quote from: "Willravel"

Quote from: "rdm"The claim for miracles in the Bible is quite irrelevant in this context. The believers' position, or a believers' position, is that Genesis 1-11 is allegory, and that real chronology starts with Abram. The atheist must deal with that claimed distinction, not the claims for miracles, unless the only aim is to debunk fundamentalists, which other believers have as their aim also. And if that distinction cannot be shown to be a false one, there is no purpose in invoking science or practical considerations onto what could be allegory. Earlier generations of atheists did not make fools of themselves by pressing this objection.

QuoteHow about this: if Genesis 1-11 was an allegory, from whence did the allegory come?

The usual claim is that the Biblical stories were adaptations of existing myths from Babylonia and other regions.

Quote from: "rdm"The usual claim is that the Biblical stories were adaptations of existing myths from Babylonia and other regions.

The Babylonians didn't yet exist when "the earth was formless and empty". Are you suggesting they made it up or that it was divinely inspired? We still end up with the same choices: either Genesis 1 doesn't mean anything as it was made up, or it was divinely inspired or requires some sort of supernatural interference.

Quote from: "Willravel"

Quote from: "rdm"The usual claim is that the Biblical stories were adaptations of existing myths from Babylonia and other regions.

The Babylonians didn't yet exist when "the earth was formless and empty". Are you suggesting they made it up or that it was divinely inspired?

If you are incapable of using sentences without personal pronouns, don't bother posting to me.

Quote from: "rdm"If you are incapable of using sentences without personal pronouns, don't bother posting to me.

The use of "you" was actually necessary to label the point and connect it to you.
If you're incapable of addressing my points, you may want to try a less subtle red herring in the future.

By the way, at the top of the page, you used "you" twice when addressing laetusatheos.