[Trespass]

Originally Posted by Carrion

Sorry, but I can't determine if this is a joke or not. ID is justified and should be taught because the reward is better for believing it than not? That's not how schools determine what should be taught. We don't have anything to honestly learn from ID (In its current form).

I'm not arguing whether or not it should be taught in schools. That whole post was defending the motivation behind some of us. "Bible Thumpers", "Religious Fanatics" etc. etc. are titles thrown around far too easily. As soon as someone says "Well I believe thats how God wanted it to happen" and bam, some of the people that hear it will immediately think he is an ignorant, backwards Televangelist wannabe.

I'm just saying that the reason that some of us are doing our best to non-intrusively help people who we feel will experience a painful afterlife. Were doing it because we care.

Trust me, as someone who battles within the church and challenges various openly religious people's motivation to do what they've done, I hold no illusions on what has been done for my faith. (Once again, I disagree with the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition).

And if I'm not clear enough (as I'm known to lose track; apologies): I'm defending the motivation of those who I feel are doing whatever they can to help others. And not televangelists, who are pretty much sellouts.

I'm not entering the ID vs. Evolution debate, as I believe in Creationism/ID. I don't believe in the science behind ID. I don't have to.

My stance: I believe Evolution is much a religion as Creationism/ID is. (And I'm versed on both sides of this debate). Until they can force or recreate a macro evolution within a species, and not a micro-evolution, then I'm game.

[Carrion]

Evolution isn't religion. Religion is the belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

Observed Intances of Speciation:

Observed Instances of Speciation

29 Evidences of Macroevolution:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent



A lot of people make the mistake that evolution is somehow an alternative for religion, this isn't true. You can easily believe in both if you read the Bible with an open mind and acknowledge that some verses aren't meant to be taken literally. Ken Miller for example is a practicing Roman Catholic and a biology professor. DonExodus2 of Youtube fame has 8 semesters at Cathedral Preparatory in theology, and a Doctoral from UNC-Chapel Hill in evolutionary biology and opposes the ID movement greatly.

"Until they can force or recreate a macro evolution within a species, and not a micro-evolution, then I'm game." <- See above links. If they were to force evolution, that would throw the idea of natural selection out the window.

[TheHandOfStone]

Originally Posted by Trespass

Fuck, can't you guys realize the reason us ID/Creationists try to convince you guys is not for some crazy self-serving scheme, were doing everything we can to help you guys reach a paradise we believe in. We are moved by compassion!

Forget the method, (their are too many of us, and were all lumped in the same group for me to argue whose method is in the right, whose in the wrong) but damnit were trying.

For us, its the same as someone dying in the desert, and we know the location of the oasis that would save your life, and only ask that you trust us to help guide you there. We're not carrying you, you have to get to the water yourself. We do these things because we try to love one another, for peace and prosperity, and freedom of speech.

I have many problems myself with the various denominations within Christianity, not because their message is bad, but because each denomination has a different method of getting people to the end result. I feel nearly all methods these days are just terrible and contradict the point of freedom of choice on a religious level, and usually just put people against religion itself (Muslim extremists/Crusades/Spanish Inquisition etc.).

I'm open to any religious talk, and will happily listen to anything you have to refute of what I say now or in the future in regards to religion. If anything needs to be discussed on PM, or MSN, I'm happy as well.

Thanks,
Kris

Except that the "oasis" you speak of could very well be a mirage. In which case, you lead us in circles until we die of dehydration.

I appreciate your concern, but I think you get my point.

Originally Posted by Vince

IMO, both Atheism and Faithfullness are ridiculous to me because either way you're just guessing and assuming a position. No one knows for sure one way or another.

I look at it this way... picture a huge circle, maybe 20-30 meters wide. That big circle represents all the knowledge in the universe. Now imagine a tiny dot on that circle, made with let's say a pen or marker. That dot represents what humanity, us, actually know about the universe. There's almost an infinite amount we do not know. Science & research is there to expand that dot and through those academic pursuits we learn more about the universe we live in. Religion, or faithfulness, on the other hand, guesses in the darkness, trys to fill in the void without reason, research, or critical intelligent thought.

We do not know what is out there. We only have 5 senses, can only see & hear a small amount of wavelengths we know exist, and if you follow any peer-reviewed research about things like string theory, there are as many as 9-13 dimensions we do not understand or know about that potentially hold the universe together.

SO, to say there DEFINITELY is a God, or you DEFINITELY know about what happens to you after you die is close minded, just as saying there DEFINITELY isn't a God is just as close-minded, because we simply don't know. Ideas are good. Intelligent thought & discourse is good. Beliefs are bad. No one dies for an idea, but people will go to war over beliefs.

I'm a Recovering Catholic, and I'm proud to say I'm agnostic. I do not know, do not assume the arrogance to say I know, and either way I believe life is beautiful and we're all very lucky to be alive.

+ Rep. I too have recently turned from Catholicism. I guess I just feel religion serves to safeguard the mind against unanswerable questions. You really hit the nail on the head here.

[JBroll]

Vince, atheism can also be the lack of a belief in god. Also, if your conception of a god is internally contradictory (like an omnipotent or omnipresent deity) it can be impossible from a logical perspective, and unless you consider logic to be inherently flawed you can arrive at atheism that way.

For the guys who think they're called stupid or being persecuted for believing in ID... I think you can believe whatever you want, and honestly most people who you think are persecuting you agree. The problem comes when you try to pass something like that off as science... when it isn't.

First, ID is NOT falsifiable, which immediately disqualifies it from serious scientific consideration. Second, no research is done in ID to the best of the field's leaders' knowledge, and no medical breakthroughs come from it, so it is in practice useless. Third, it is a non-answer - until it possesses explanatory and predictive power, it is of no use to a mind that wants real answers.

"God did it" is no better an answer than "It just is"; further, by saying that everything needed to be created you're actually making the problem more complex. If the creator was created, where did the creator's creator (and the creator's creator's creator, and so on) come from? This has no value since it raises the complexity of the issue infinitely and answers nothing more. If the creator was not created, no sound explanation is given as to why the creator did not need to be created and the simpler creation did, and you've still complicated the problem further for no good reason.

You can believe it, but from the scientific perspective it is simply a non-answer. As for religion... as always I appreciate the concern, but I simply think you don't have as beautiful an oasis as logic, so I'm trying to help you to the one I like more.

(And some would find it silly if someone didn't believe science but still used the fruits of simply incredible solid-state physics to transmit arguments against it.)

Jeff