The Creation vs Evolution debate thread...

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by August

Then we wouldn't be free at all. I can play a video game in indestructible mode but that doesn't prove that i'm any good at it. No, Gods gift to us is life in full real mode. I wouldn't want it any other way.

Is god omniscient? How is it possible to know the future if it hasn't been determined? If it's been determined, how can free will exist?

How can we have free will when brain tumors can turn people to pedophilia?

And isn't it interesting that free will wasn't such a big concern in biblical times, when god would meddle in human affairs at the drop of a hat to aid or punish his favorite tribe of goat herders. Only now that god has fallen silent and appears to be taking an extended vacation does free will become sacrosanct (and the go-to answer for why the world sucks/why the need for faith). And now, with the crimes of the twentieth century still fresh in our memory, does that excuse seem all the more unsatisfactory.

[August]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

questions

The beauty part is that God does not require you to believe or understand.

Personally I see the stories in the bible as little more than fables you tell children to illustrate some deeper point. We humans do not really comprehend the concept of God so we invent stories. To read anything more into it is to miss the greater truth.

[Sailor Steve]

The dyslexic atheist believes there is no Dog.

The insomniac dyslexic agnostic lies awake at night wondering whether there's a Dog.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The dyslexic atheist believes there is no Dog.

The insomniac dyslexic agnostic lies awake at night wondering whether there's a Dog.

So the dyslexic theist spends his time wondering why God spends so much time licking himself?

[Sailor Steve]

Cleaning the screen, desk and keyboard after that one.

Yeah all that and self righteous Irishmen who claim expert knowledge about the Honduran constitution without any evidence to back it up.

Wow you still ain't learned anything on that topic and you still have not read the document....and appear to be very bitter about your lack of knowledge.
Congratulations August.

[MothBalls]

The one thing missing from this entire debate is...... Tolerance.

I accept that what you believe in is truth. Your truth. You can live your life according to your truth, or faith, and I will not interfere with your right to do so.

At the same time, please accept my truth the same way and don't try and convince me that your beliefs are the only truth.

Even though we may not believe in the same god, or lack of god, doesn't mean that we can't be friends and live together in peace.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

The one thing missing from this entire debate is...... Tolerance.

I accept that what you believe in is truth. Your truth. You can live your life according to your truth, or faith, and I will not interfere with your right to do so.

At the same time, please accept my truth the same way and don't try and convince me that your beliefs are the only truth.

Even though we may not believe in the same god, or lack of god, doesn't mean that we can't be friends and live together in peace.

Ah yes, tolerance.

First, read my sig.

second, consider this:

One of the highest cleric authorities in global islam, Yussuf al-Qaradawi, just has issued a fatwa that wants to prohibit all Christians living in muslim countries from celebrating christmas. This fatwa has been issued in combination with a sermon he gave on the issue as well:


Tolerance?

today, an interesting interview with an American oberver of Germany has been published here.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...668750,00.html

you may want to take note of the integration problems, and what he said about two types of public debate of islam, and the folly of believing that a strong Islam would change it's identity due to the weak western self-identity.

Now compare all this to thousands of prayer rooms, mosques and minarettes having been build in europe in the past 40 years - while the chruches get systematically hindered, supressed and discriminated in pratcually all Islamic nations, and communities in Muslim nation shrinking constantly, and their members being constantly discriminated as well. compare what the West allows Islam in freedom of religion (and politics), dominating media presence, public debate and privilefges not even given to the churches, with the systematic intolerance towardsa other cultures and relgions practiced inMuslim countries. The dysbalance should be a real eye-opener. Compare that preacher's hate-sermon against christmas, with this stupid Bishop in Hamburg who just a week ago deamnded that in his city he wants muezzins calling muslims to prayer in the city of Hamburg. No, that Bishop, a woman, is not muslim at all. but instead of caqring for her own relgion'S business, she appeases Islam in advance, hoping to stengthen the claim for politial power of the church again , and social influence, if Islam becomes stronger accepted by people and by soceity first. And in some protestantic communities, the priests want to celebrate muhammad's birthday in Chuistian curches and together with the birthday of Jesus.

Insanity and stupidity indeed knows no limits. Just good intentions.

If there would be a free poll on building of more minraetts in gerjmany, too, I am cifndent that like in Switzerland a majority of people would votre against it. The media-led politically correct dictate of opinion on islam does not reflect the real opinion. That the EU makes criticism of Islam and religion a "hate"-crime that could be punished both with prison and paying money, does not help, of course.

Imn some post aboveI noted that Islamic law prohibits to have treaties with infidel factions lasting longer than two years. This is to protect Islamic identity from getting watered down when being too long in tolerant coexistence with other cultures. There is another such ruling, on which practically all legal schools of islamic law agree. That rule says that Muslims moving to non-Muslims places shoudl stay there only for a maximum of four years. After these years, is the original law, they either must have been successful in having turned the place into amuslim culture, or they must go away, again to protect their holy muslim characteristics being protected from getting negatively influenced. This is a valid law, although even many mulsims do not know it, and as said: the various schools of islamic law agree in their verdict oin this rule beign binding.

Now, as often, there are sometimes more, sometimes less obvious differences between practcial reality, and ideal demands of ideology. Nevertheless, you must keep the ideologic side in mkind , especially when thinkn abiut islam. The ideologists are more influential in the islamic world, then it is the case with other ideologies there are, and their accordding societies. and these preachers loal to the original ideology reach far more people in their hearts, then for example the Chruches or the Wetsern democracies do.

An immigrant is somebody who moves to a foreign place, and tries to adapt to the new environment he finds, and and tries to melt into the local social culture and become part of it. the risk of resistent sub-cultures and paralleol soceities is low, therefore, and we see that in Germany with all non-Muslim imigration groups there are.

A colonist is somebody who moves to a foreign place and has no intention at all to adapt himself to it, but to chnage the place that way that it adapts to his own needs, by that he wants the new world becoming like the old home he has left behind. The risk of sub cultures and parrallel societies therefore is high. If you think about that 4 year rule, you must admit that there cannot be imagined something like a Muslim "immigrant" - not from an Islamic juristic or theologic point of view. Muslim migration means nothing but attempted muslim colonisation, therefore.

that many Muslims stay beyond that four yera rule, simply is in violation or lacking knowledge of that rule. Lacking practical alternatives also play a role especially when people come from very poor places and are unedcuated and form the special low class - the dominant, major share of muslim migration is like that.

How far can you get with tolerance in the face of such a challenger? Remember, Muhhammad was a conqeror, his ideology was a poltical tool, Islam is a conqueror's ideology.

Again, that interview gets many things very right. What he has noted on the Turkish subculture in Germany proving to be extremely resistent to integration, is true.

That you personally want to be tolerant, honours you. but ongoing tolerance in the face of what does not tolerate yourself - is a very bad idea, maybe. Having good intentions yourself - is not enough. I think to some part you are aware of that.

I do not agree with all what Caldwell says, but in general he gets some major things straight and right. On some, he is not aware that he shares the optimism of those that he criticises for right that optimism.

(...)
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are you suggesting there is no open discussion about Islam in Europe?
Caldwell: I think these things are getting much more openly debated than a few years ago. In the Netherlands and Denmark you do have a contentious debate. I think a lot of Danes and Dutch aren't really proud of the way their populist parties are discussing the issue of immigration, but it's generally much better if things are discussed openly.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Where, in your opinion, is it not possible to speak openly about it?
Caldwell: In countries like France there are laws against all sorts of speech. That has a very chilling effect. Many people are frightened about negative consequences if they say how they really feel. Sometimes even to the pollsters, as the Swiss example shows.
(...)
Caldwell: As I say in my book: When an insecure, malleable, relativistic culture meets a culture that is anchored, confident and strengthened by common doctrines, it is generally the former that changes to suit the latter.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you think the European mainstream culture is weak because it is secular?
Caldwell: Islam is the second biggest religion in Europe. But that is true only if you're thinking statistically. If you're thinking culturally and spiritually, it looks like the first religion of Europe. There are many, many more articles on the front pages of newspapers about what Islam says about this and what the Koran says about that than there are articles about Christian theology. They are full of debates between Muslims and non-Muslims addressing question about what the Koran says about honor killings and the headscarf. What Christianity says is not really a matter of much importance to anyone.
(...)
Caldwell: There is no welfare state on the scale of that in Europe, and I think welfare states are a bad fit for large-scale immigration. In an ethnically diverse society, people are less familiar with each other, and they are correspondingly less willing to pay taxes for social benefits. Two-thirds of the imams in France are on welfare. There is nothing wrong with being an imam. But I don't think the French are very happy about paying what is effectively a state subsidy for religion in that way.

second, consider this:

OK I'm game for a laugh.

One of the highest cleric authorities in global islam

There is no such thing.
Wow that was short and really strained the thought process.

[sharkbit]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

The one thing missing from this entire debate is...... Tolerance.

I accept that what you believe in is truth. Your truth. You can live your life according to your truth, or faith, and I will not interfere with your right to do so.

At the same time, please accept my truth the same way and don't try and convince me that your beliefs are the only truth.

Even though we may not believe in the same god, or lack of god, doesn't mean that we can't be friends and live together in peace.

Winner!

Unfortuneately, tolerance has been sadly lacking through the centuries in religion.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Wow you still ain't learned anything on that topic and you still have not read the document....and appear to be very bitter about your lack of knowledge.
Congratulations August.

And congratulations to you for continuing your smoke screen. Most people would have admitted their failure by now...

The only failure there august is your failure to read and learn.
It must be an evolutionary thing with you where you are unable to develop.
Simple lesson august, if even the people who overthrew the government say it was unconstitutional then you must have a real severe mental block if you still cannot understand it.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by August

The beauty part is that God does not require you to believe or understand.

How do you know that? If you're going to discount the bible, how could you claim to know anything about god at all?

To read anything more into it is to miss the greater truth.

What greater truth?

It's seems as if you're attributing characteristics to god, yet as soon as soon as some of the many problems with the concept are pointed out, you put god back in the realm beyond human understanding, so the old "it's not supposed to make sense" defense can be trotted out.

[August]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

...so the old "it's not supposed to make sense" defense can be trotted out.

So lets just skip to the chase then. I don't think that anyone, and that includes atheists, understands the concept of God beyond the most visceral terms. It is the acme of mans arrogance that he believes he can either define, or dismiss, with authority the existence of something with the power to create the universe.

But on the other hand a book, written by men, sometimes centuries after the events they talk about, that has been translated many times, is obviously not going to be very reliable as a history textbook, but it does and has had for centuries held a strong value as a guide to life.

Is "Treat others as you want to be treated" really that bad a concept?

[antikristuseke]

No it isn't, but stoning people to death because they work on Sunday is. Both are proposed in the bible.

All religious texts contain some good ideas, but none point to any evidence for a creator. While a gods existance is possible there is no reason to assume that to be true because there is no evidence for it.