NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?


Define teachings. Are you talking ethics/morality or theology?

Sure.
The 'teachings' are only ideas and tenets to structure one's life around, or completely ignore. The person does not need to believe in the speaker to understand the message.

In the sense that you mean "embrace" as consider them moral and ethical guidelines, yes, in the same way an atheist can embrace the teachings of martin luther king jr.

If by "embrace" you mean consider them divine words from god? no.

Yes, it is entirely possible to hold a completely irrational and self-contradictory belief.

Define teachings. Are you talking ethics/morality or theology?

Well, to be honest, I'm not sure Jesus actually taught any theology. Most of his parables were ethical and moral dilemmas. How to be good men and women

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Depends on which "teachings." "Be kind to one another?" Sure. "I am the lord thy God?" No.

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

If you're talking about using them as ethic and moral guidelines, then yes, it's perfectly possible-- I do that.

If you're talking about believing that Jesus is divine and all that, no, that's not.

Depends on which "teachings." "Be kind to one another?" Sure. "I am the lord thy God?" No.

But Jesus never said he was God! He said repeatedly that he was the son of man, when accused of being the son of God.

Kind of a silly question. Of course you can be an athiest who doesn't believe in God or Jesus's existence, but still practise the teachings they may or may not have taught.

You can be an athiest but still love your neighbour as you love yourself etc.

Which Gospel's version of them?

Sure. I don't consider myself a Christian, but I still think Jesus seems like a pretty decent fellow and a reasonable role model.

Yeah, definitely.

I'm a Christian, and I try to incorporate Buddhist, Muslim, and other teachings into my morals.

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Jesus taught (in a nutshell):
Treat others as you want to be treated
Offer all your actions to God

You can embrace at least half of his teachings.

Sure. I don't consider myself a Christian, but I still think Jesus seems like a pretty decent fellow and a reasonable role model.

How very reasonable of you... and here I was, trying to be inflammatory and draw out the more extremist and obdurate portions of the bible-belt society!

All right then, another question: What do you think of the fact that some schools in the United States do not teach evolution, but rather creationism or the theory of intelligent design?

What do you think of the fact that some schools in the United States do not teach evolution, but rather creationism or the theory of intelligent design?
That's silly.

Creationism belongs only in the World History class, where it is to be taught as something cultural.

What do you think of the fact that some schools in the United States do not teach evolution, but rather creationism or the theory of intelligent design?

Never heard of it.

Intelligent design is the theory that evolution was somehow directed to produce the end result by a higher power. It's something of an attempt to integrate science and theology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Never heard of it.
Retard Kansans being taught that people were popped into existence and then God did everything ever after that, ever.

Ring a bell?

Intelligent design is the theory that evolution was somehow directed to produce the end result by a higher power. It's something of an attempt to integrate science and theology.

Wiki has a good description of it...

Retard Kansans being taught that people were popped into existence and then God did everything ever after that, ever.

Ring a bell?

Intelligent design is the theory that evolution was somehow directed to produce the end result by a higher power. It's something of an attempt to integrate science and theology.

Wiki has a good description of it...

Whoosh...

How very reasonable of you... and here I was, trying to be inflammatory and draw out the more extremist and obdurate portions of the bible-belt society! you know what they call doing that here? Trolling. not a good idea. and after posting that...

All right then, another question: What do you think of the fact that some schools in the United States do not teach evolution, but rather creationism or the theory of intelligent design?
I don't think I'll be answering this without some proof being supplied by the person making this claim.

Yes, it is entirely possible to hold a completely irrational and self-contradictory belief.

In fact, most human beings do in one way shape or form. *nod*

*meh* call it what you wish, trolling or whatever. I was just trying to have an interesting discussion.

As to the truth about this issue of teaching of intelligent design, there was actually a case where a group of parents took a high school to court (Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District) over this.

As to the truth about this issue of teaching of intelligent design, there was actually a case where a group of parents took a high school to court (Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District) over this.
except it wasn't teaching ID instead of Evolution but teaching ID as an alternative theory or whatever to Evolution.

so Evolution was still being taught there, just that ID was also being taught along side it.

BTW, while I think the Idea of ID should be taught, I don't support that it be taught as science, but theology.

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?Of course! Even though Jesus is a myth, his supposed "teachings" are a good code to live by. Jesus in a fable, with particularly believable moral.

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Absolutely. I am a Jew and I accept many of the teachings of JC. I do not like the commie stuff though. I hear that pretty much all Muslims do. So why should not atheists?

Of course! Even though Jesus is a myth, his supposed "teachings" are a good code to live by. Jesus in a fable, with particularly believable moral.

I am not sure that he is a myth, although I think I see your point. There may very well have been a JC who may have led some type of reform movement that may have been messianic (I am just saying he had a messianic message I am not saying that everyone or even I agree that he was the messiah), but some of the other stuff is more open to debate.

except it wasn't teaching ID instead of Evolution but teaching ID as an alternative theory or whatever to Evolution.

so Evolution was still being taught there, just that ID was also being taught along side it.

BTW, while I think the Idea of ID should be taught, I don't support that it be taught as science, but theology.
Why not?

As far as I'm concerned, ID is a more complete approach to science. It IS science - its just that the definition of science in this sense is "the study of a supreme intelligent being's blueprint of reality" instead of just "the study of the blueprint of reality".

Why not?

As far as I'm concerned, ID is a more complete approach to science. It IS science - its just that the definition of science in this sense is "the study of a supreme intelligent being's blueprint of reality" instead of just "the study of the blueprint of reality".

The US National Academy of Science disagrees with you (as do I). It's not science because it cannot be proven by experimentation. Just because scientists do not, as yet, have a better explanation, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Retard Kansans being taught that people were popped into existence and then God did everything ever after that, ever.

Ring a bell?

No.
Is this still happening today?

Well, to be honest, I'm not sure Jesus actually taught any theology. Most of his parables were ethical and moral dilemmas. How to be good men and women


Actually, no. They weren't. The parable of the good Samaritan was, sure, but that's about the only one. Most of them begin with "the kingdom of heaven is like" or similar. The parable of the sower and the parable of the dragnet relate directly to "true and false conversions" and the parable of the tenants basically talks about his own death. They couldn't have been more theological if he tried.

The US National Academy of Science disagrees with you (as do I). It's not science because it cannot be proven by experimentation. Just because scientists do not, as yet, have a better explanation, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Try replicating the Big Bang. And if scientists can do that, they still won't be able to explain which scientist was around to do it the first time. A lot of questions and theories in science cannot be proven by experimentation either.

except it wasn't teaching ID instead of Evolution but teaching ID as an alternative theory or whatever to Evolution.

so Evolution was still being taught there, just that ID was also being taught along side it.

BTW, while I think the Idea of ID should be taught, I don't support that it be taught as science, but theology.

Perhaps the two are being taught together, but there is a push among certain groups in the US to teach only Intelligent Design. The whole "Teach the Controversy" campaign exists and has favour among a lot of ultra-religious types.

If by that you mean accept the lessons of a man who was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if everybody was nice to each other for a change, sure.

Actually, no. They weren't. The parable of the good Samaritan was, sure, but that's about the only one. Most of them begin with "the kingdom of heaven is like" or similar. The parable of the sower and the parable of the dragnet relate directly to "true and false conversions" and the parable of the tenants basically talks about his own death. They couldn't have been more theological if he tried.

Perhaps... but what about his teachings of turning the other cheek? Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone. Is that not an ethical/moral dilemma?

Try replicating the Big Bang. And if scientists can do that, they still won't be able to explain which scientist was around to do it the first time. A lot of questions and theories in science cannot be proven by experimentation either.

No, you cannot prove it by experimentation. But, it can be modeled and analyzed and explained using immutable mathematical equations (it's called relativity!). Can you do as much for creationism?

If by that you mean accept the lessons of a man who was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if everybody was nice to each other for a change, sure.

Ah, but was he nailed to a tree because of his beliefs or because of the way he decided to express them (and thereby pissed off the Romans)?

Perhaps... but what about his teachings of turning the other cheek? Let he who has never sinned cast the first stone. Is that not an ethical/moral dilemma?

The sermon on the mount? Eh, it's all about the context. If you actually read it properly, he keeps referring to the laws, and in particular the ten commandments. If you look at it in the big picture of all he said, his actual point was that being a "good" person is totally impossible (he even said "no-one but God is good" at one point), and that the whole message of salvation he offered is the only possible way to avoid hell. Grace rather than action. You really have to ignore about 90% of what he said to take it as advice on ethics etc tbh.

No, you cannot prove it by experimentation. But, it can be modeled and analyzed and explained using immutable mathematical equations (it's called relativity!). Can you do as much for creationism?
From my point of view, mathematical equations are just ways of looking at things. There are other perspectives one can take on life that are just as valid. The scientific method is just a point of view.:D

The sermon on the mount? Eh, it's all about the context. If you actually read it properly, he keeps referring to the laws, and in particular the ten commandments. If you look at it in the big picture of all he said, his actual point was that being a "good" person is totally impossible (he even said "no-one but God is good" at one point), and that the whole message of salvation he offered is the only possible way to avoid hell. Grace rather than action. You really have to ignore about 90% of what he said to take it as advice on ethics etc tbh.

Well, after rereading it, I couldn't find any reference to the quote you mentioned. But "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbour" seem like definite, moral statements to me, and not theological.

A minor note of interest: the sermon on the mount alludes to swearing -> Do not swear by heaven, your head etc. Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. Funny how in many courts of law we "swear" on the bible, despite Jesus' injunction not to.

From my point of view, mathematical equations are just ways of looking at things. There are other perspectives one can take on life that are just as valid. The scientific method is just a point of view.:D

But didn't you previously say that ID is science? :headbang: Therefore, according to scientific method, it should be provable by mathematics. Your other perspectives are fine... that's what I call faith. Like the dude said: Prove it!

But didn't you previously say that ID is science? :headbang: Therefore, according to scientific method, it should be provable by mathematics. Your other perspectives are fine... that's what I call faith. Like the dude said: Prove it!
ID is science. Science operates under a lot of assumptions that they call THEORIES. ID operates under the assumption that there is a creator and it uses the scientific method to understand what has been created, why, and how. Understanding =/= belief.

ID is science. Science operates under a lot of assumptions that they call THEORIES. ID operates under the assumption that there is a creator and it uses the scientific method to understand what has been created, why, and how. Understanding =/= belief.

But one of the basic tenets of science is that it operates independently of a supernatural force. It doesn't assume that there is or is not an external force acting on the universe. That is at the very heart of what differentiates science and faith.

From my point of view, mathematical equations are just ways of looking at things. There are other perspectives one can take on life that are just as valid. The scientific method is just a point of view.:D

2+2=4 is just a way of looking at things. In school, we should also teach that 2+2=5. It's another perspective on life that's just as valid.


Oh wait, no. Because that's stupid.

ID is science. Science operates under a lot of assumptions that they call THEORIES.

It's okay if you don't know what science is. Not everybody does. But don't wander around lying in such obvious ways. You just look very foolish.


ID operates under the assumption that there is a creator and it uses the scientific method to understand what has been created, why, and how. Understanding =/= belief.
Please state the scientific method, and provide specific examples of ID applying this method.

Why not?

As far as I'm concerned, ID is a more complete approach to science. It IS science - its just that the definition of science in this sense is "the study of a supreme intelligent being's blueprint of reality" instead of just "the study of the blueprint of reality".
It's not science, it's Religion. Theology. a totally different subject. an alternative to Science would be Magic (A.K.A Socery)

Perhaps the two are being taught together, but there is a push among certain groups in the US to teach only Intelligent Design. The whole "Teach the Controversy" campaign exists and has favour among a lot of ultra-religious types.
Support your claim that there is a "push among certain groups in the US to teach ONLY ID" in our schools. I've seen/read more about those wanting to teach it along side evolution. but none about those wanting to teach ID in place of Evolution.

Well, after rereading it, I couldn't find any reference to the quote you mentioned. But "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbour" seem like definite, moral statements to me, and not theological.

A minor note of interest: the sermon on the mount alludes to swearing -> Do not swear by heaven, your head etc. Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. Funny how in many courts of law we "swear" on the bible, despite Jesus' injunction not to. goes into the difference between the Laws of Man and the Laws of God.

It's not science, it's Religion. Theology. a totally different subject. an alternative to Science would be Magic (A.K.A Socery)


Support your claim that there is a "push among certain groups in the US to teach ONLY ID" in our schools. I've seen/read more about those wanting to teach it along side evolution. but none about those wanting to teach ID in place of Evolution.

goes into the difference between the Laws of Man and the Laws of God.

1. Check out any website on "teach the controversy". They want to teach ID and use it to discredit evolution. Perhaps not stop schools from teaching it, because I doubt even the backward states would go for that, but make it so students clearly understand that it's being taught under duress and that you're expected to believe ID.
2. Elaborate... I thought the laws of man shouldn't contradict the laws of god. If god, or his son, says we should not swear on him, heaven, ourselves, etc. than why is it ok to swear on the bible (his alleged teachings??)

Support your claim that there is a "push among certain groups in the US to teach ONLY ID" in our schools. I've seen/read more about those wanting to teach it along side evolution. but none about those wanting to teach ID in place of Evolution.
By definition, anybody arguing that ID belongs "alongside" evolutionary theory is arguing that the fundamentals of science be completely thrown out the window. They are, in fact, arguing that all legitimate standards of science be discarded to make room for one particular pet myth.

Please don't be fooled by the bullshit "teach the controversy" slogans. It's a cheap trick, and one that Creationists--oh, sorry, "ID supporters"--have been using for upwards of 50 years at this point.

1. Check out any website on "teach the controversy". They want to teach ID and use it to discredit evolution. Perhaps not stop schools from teaching it, because I doubt even the backward states would go for that, but make it so students clearly understand that it's being taught under duress and that you're expected to believe ID.ok, but this isn't how I really think... so don't connect me with what I interpret.

I think of it as their way of making it 'equal'. often times you have people pulling out science and evolution as "proof" that God doesn't exist. yet, in the education curriculum, science courses are mandatory while religious ones are not even offered as an option untill one reaches college. Church doesn't force people to attend their services, but children are required to obtain 12+ years of schooling.

Don't see anything wrong with that? Reverse it. For every science course taught in school, replace it with a religous one and have 'churches' be the place were Science is taught. Would you then force your children to go to "church" and fight to have 'science' taught in schools?

now add to this silly situation, the fact that anytime you bring up the topic of 'Science' and that it should be taught in schools, you get accused of attempting to indoctrinate children (especially your own) to your way of thinking.(yes, that's how it was in the old days.)

Now to us, that does seem... ludicrous... but to them, it's an attack on their children's spiritual welfare. People say that it's Religion that's doing the indoctrination while they send their children off to an institution where most of them don't even know (or care) what is being taught or how.

In actuality, Science and Religon are not at odds with each other. At this point, science cannot disprove God and people claim that if science can prove it, then God didn't do it (which is the wrong conclusion.)

2. Elaborate... I thought the laws of man shouldn't contradict the laws of god. If god, or his son, says we should not swear on him, heaven, ourselves, etc. than why is it ok to swear on the bible (his alleged teachings??)
been a long time since I delved into the difference bweteen the two. but there is a difference. let me find my information and get back to you. :)

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Sounds like Christian existentialism fits that description.

...in the education curriculum, science courses are mandatory while religious ones are not even offered as an option untill one reaches college. Church doesn't force people to attend their services, but children are required to obtain 12+ years of schooling.

Don't see anything wrong with that? Reverse it. For every science course taught in school, replace it with a religous one and have 'churches' be the place were Science is taught. Would you then force your children to go to "church" and fight to have 'science' taught in schools?

now add to this silly situation, the fact that anytime you bring up the topic of 'Science' and that it should be taught in schools, you get accused of attempting to indoctrinate children (especially your own) to your way of thinking.(yes, that's how it was in the old days.)

Now to us, that does seem... ludicrous... but to them, it's an attack on their children's spiritual welfare. People say that it's Religion that's doing the indoctrination while they send their children off to an institution where most of them don't even know (or care) what is being taught or how.
.

Ok, first of all, it's not me that decreed that religion should not be taught in schools, it's in the US constitution. I personally attended catholic private school in Canada and was given religious education alongside the regular curriculum. However, they never attempted to indoctrinate me with any ID or creationist beliefs. Religion class was completely separate. We talked about morals, and ethics, and love thy neighbour... etc.

Secondly, the universal declaration for human rights provides parents the freedom to provide religious education for their children as they see fit. So, if as a parent, you see it as your duty to teach your children that God created the world and that Darwin was an idiot, fine! And if you want to homeschool, all the better! Don't let your kids be contaminated with that Darwinist crap the system teaches.

But, it IS the responsibility of the state to see that the youth of the country are well educated. This includes teaching them about the world... (SIDEBAR - Rex Murphy, a Canadian comic, does a show called "Talking to Americans" which does a great job of identifying how little some Americans know about the world). Teaching our children about the world includes geography and science and history. They need to know where we come from. They need to know that we share over 98% of our chromosomes with Chimpanzees (it teaches humility, for a start!). This is science.

Do they need to be taught that some sections of society believe that God created the world in 7 days?

But, it IS the responsibility of the state to see that the youth of the country are well educated. This includes teaching them about the world... (SIDEBAR - Rex Murphy, a Canadian comic, does a show called "Talking to Americans" which does a great job of identifying how little some Americans know about the world).

That's Rick Mercer, not Rex Murphy, fyi.

*relurks*

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Most of them, but not all of them, like the "I am the only gate/path/guide to Heaven" kind of bullcrap or the "Slave should obey their masters" kind of other bullcrap or the "I'm not going to help this Canaanite because she's not an Israeli" other OTHER kind of bullcrap. But I suppose, for the most part sure, it's not like any other philopsher is more valid. People like Plato, Voltaire, or Nietzche simply have fewer pretensions (self-delusions?) than a man who claimed himself the son of "God."

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Yes.
Many of the ideas attributed to the Jesus Christ concept are actually pretty decent.
A few of them are obviously way-fucked, but many are worth serious consideration.

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Possible ? Yes.
I myself however prefer to do things because they are good, not because some Jesus fellow supposedly said them.

Of course. You can believe in turning the other cheek, lovin your neighbour, helping the poor and turning water to wine without thinking he was God

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

you can pick and choose anything you damd well feel like picking and choosing. the only question doing so raises is the ligitimacy of what you call yourself by doing so.

as for that guy you named. all we really know is what four of his buddies wrote about mostly the last three years of his life and some of the circumstances possibly surrouning his birth. other then one incident at age twelve, only mentioned by one of them, we know NOTHING about the first THIRTY years of his life.

nor will there ever be an end to controversy over just what he actually DID teach.

we have translations of what those four guys wrote, and a bunch of other stuff, in some ways related, written by a bunch of other people before and since. but that's all we actually really have.

that and our own personal individual feelings, whatever those might happen to be.

i'm a bit leary of attributing too much to either that name or that book, though not dismissing out of hand all possible interpretations thereof.

rather i see each writing on matters of belief and spirit as being small parts of a much larger picture then any of us can imagine.

just as what is known about our tangable universe is also a relatively small part of a virtually unimaginably greater whole.

=^^=
.../\...

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

I don't see why not.
I think there are some very clever ideas in that book about social interaction, respect and tolerance. Recognising that doesn't mean you have to buy the whole thing.

I don't see why not.
I think there are some very clever ideas in that book about social interaction, respect and tolerance. Recognising that doesn't mean you have to buy the whole thing.

And who doesn't love a guy who can turn water into wine?

And who doesn't love a guy who can turn water into wine?

The guys who can turn potatoes into poteen?

The guys who can turn potatoes into poteen?

Yeah, but there's about 4 million of them.

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Atheists don't all dispute the existence of Jesus, just the validity of his claim of being the son of a magical being. For example, if you or I went and got pregnant and claimed virginity in this day and age, we wouldn't have people flocking around calling it a miracle - we'd get some raised eyebrows. Likewise, if I went around claiming to be the child of god, I'd probably get locked up in a cushioned room before I got worshipped.

With that in mind, whether or not he was nuts or truly the son of god makes no real difference to most of what he was saying - you can still agree with him when he tells people not to go beating up your neighbours for a laugh, or not to go around shagging peoples' significant others. But when he starts rambling on about god, you can just nod politely and quietly shuffle to the back of the room...

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Like love your neighbor, give to the poor and treat others the way you wish to be treated and all that good stuff? Yeah, my grandfather's an atheist, but thinks that there's some good stuff in the new testament.

Well, after rereading it, I couldn't find any reference to the quote you mentioned. But "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbour" seem like definite, moral statements to me, and not theological.


You have to read the gospels as a whole to pick up on it, and understand the function of the laws in the old testament. Basically, at the time the Jewish leaders would teach that obeying the laws would get you salvation. So Jesus said that obeying the letter of the law isn't erough: lust after a woman, you've commited adultery. Call your brother a fool and in God's eyes you've killed him. And so on.


A minor note of interest: the sermon on the mount alludes to swearing -> Do not swear by heaven, your head etc. Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. Funny how in many courts of law we "swear" on the bible, despite Jesus' injunction not to.

As was said before, God's law isn't civil law. As Jesus said, render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and unto God that which is God. The rule of thumb is, you follow the laws of the country in which you dwell as long as doing so won't contravene God's laws.
Yeah, I never understood the whole swearing on the bible thing. I suppose it jsut proves the point.

All right then, another question: What do you think of the fact that some schools in the United States do not teach evolution, but rather creationism or the theory of intelligent design?

This is where I find it funny, because if you take any decent Christian theology course, which will include the multitude of varying theological viewpoints of "creation", other Christian held views besides Literal (6 24 hour day) and Day-Age theory will be presented, including Progressive Creationism, Theistic Evolution and Evolutionary Creationism, all three of which include varying degrees of acceptance from minor (Progressive Creationism) to complete (Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creationism) of the scientific theory of evolution... And yet the Day-Age and Literalists seem to believe they are speaking for the entirety of Christendom with regards to their beliefs...

Well on the evolution debate, I don't like the idea of either being taught as fact, so I'm jsut glad I live in teh UK :p

Darwin's been blown out of all proportion by people that seem to forget his ideas are theory, not fact. Paricularly folk like Dawkins who practically turn it into their own religion. *shrug*

For the record: I'm not stupid enough to say there's no such thing as evolution. Just not to the extent some folk would claim.

Well on the evolution debate, I don't like the idea of either being taught as fact, so I'm jsut glad I live in teh UK :p

Darwin's been blown out of all proportion by people that seem to forget his ideas are theory, not fact. Paricularly folk like Dawkins who practically turn it into their own religion. *shrug*

For the record: I'm not stupid enough to say there's no such thing as evolution. Just not to the extent some folk would claim.

I smell a threadjack a comin' when someone objects to your use of the term 'just theory', among other things.

Well on the evolution debate, I don't like the idea of either being taught as fact, so I'm jsut glad I live in teh UK :p

Darwin's been blown out of all proportion by people that seem to forget his ideas are theory, not fact. Paricularly folk like Dawkins who practically turn it into their own religion. *shrug*

For the record: I'm not stupid enough to say there's no such thing as evolution. Just not to the extent some folk would claim.

Heh, given the proof we have that evolution does occur, and the proof we have of the actual age of the universe and the earth then to be an evolution denier really is not a bright things to do.

except it wasn't teaching ID instead of Evolution but teaching ID as an alternative theory or whatever to Evolution.

so Evolution was still being taught there, just that ID was also being taught along side it.

BTW, while I think the Idea of ID should be taught, I don't support that it be taught as science, but theology.

Indeed, there isn't even a consensus within the Creationary theologies supportive of evolutionary theory as to what degree ID plays.... a Progressive or a Evolutionary Creationist (I am the later) would say God had a direct role in evolution; where as a Theistic Evolutionist would say this role was indirect. The EC and TE would both agree, however, with the exact context of scientific evolution; the degree really varying within the context of the role God plays in His direction of the natural world... I generally disagree, however, with ID supporters in how they attempt to use it as a scientific study... ID is supported by literalists and Day-Agers within the context of their study, in the end, as a way to invalidate evolutionary theory, and less as its theological counterpart as a theological doctrine surrounding the part God plays in evolution... Which is why they want ID to be taught... Which is exactly why it should not be taught... I find this of no surprise, however, if you look at these same groups theology courses within their seminaries or equivalents, they bolster their particular theological views, and pay mere lip-service to other views... If they were to incorporate in teaching even theology in schools, they would do the same thing... Whereas, If I were to have theology as an elective course within public education, I would insist that the course be liberal in its presentation of varying theological views... I'd demand that Soterological views of Calvinism, Arminianism, Pelagianism, Hyper-Calvinism all be taught on equal footing... I'd want various Creation theologies taught on equal footing, I'd demand different Theological formats of Theology Proper be taught (Pan-Theism, Mono-Theism, Animism, Naturalism, Atheism) on all equal footing...

Well on the evolution debate, I don't like the idea of either being taught as fact, so I'm jsut glad I live in teh UK :p

Darwin's been blown out of all proportion by people that seem to forget his ideas are theory, not fact. Paricularly folk like Dawkins who practically turn it into their own religion. *shrug*

For the record: I'm not stupid enough to say there's no such thing as evolution. Just not to the extent some folk would claim.

"Just" a theory with decades of research finding only supporting facts, no contradicting facts.
Gravity is just a theory, but I only believe in it to some extend. I'm sure some day I'll levitate into space.

"Just" a theory with decades of research finding only supporting facts, no contradicting facts.
Gravity is just a theory, but I only believe in it to some extend. I'm sure some day I'll levitate into space.


Look at all the facts that are missing, though. There's so much evidence that we just don't have yet.

Eh, evolution happens alright. It's just that at present we can't really with any certainty say exactly how it works.

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?An atheist can do whatever the hell they want. Don't they only believe and trust in themselves anyway?

That's Rick Mercer, not Rex Murphy, fyi.

*relurks*

Oops!! How did I get that wrong!! LOL

Look at all the facts that are missing, though. There's so much evidence that we just don't have yet.
Impossible. You can't look at what's not there.

Eh, evolution happens alright. It's just that at present we can't really with any certainty say exactly how it works.
Yes we can. We can say how evolution works with as much certainty as we can say how an internal combustion engine works.
An atheist can do whatever the hell they want. Don't they only believe and trust in themselves anyway?

That's a solipist, not an atheist.

Look at all the facts that are missing, though. There's so much evidence that we just don't have yet.

Eh, evolution happens alright. It's just that at present we can't really with any certainty say exactly how it works.

We've got enough data to make a very, VERY educated guess. Science has made predictions about evolution based on the principles outlined in the theory and had them confirmed over and over and over.
And yes, we do know how it works. In minute detail.

Which would be why scientists are so divided over it?

We have evidence for microevolution. We don't have evidence for macroevolution. There's a huge problem there.

Which would be why scientists are so divided over it?
The scientists who are divided over it are generally not biologists. Their opinion on evolution is worth little more than that of someone who is not a scientist at all. Just like a biologist's opinion on cold fusion would be, for example.

We have evidence for microevolution. We don't have evidence for macroevolution. There's a huge problem there.

The huge problem is yours. Macro- and microevolution are the exact same things. They function in the exact same way. Microevolution + time = Macroevolution.

Look at all the facts that are missing, though. There's so much evidence that we just don't have yet.

Eh, evolution happens alright. It's just that at present we can't really with any certainty say exactly how it works.

It works by selecting attributes within organisms, or rather I should say attributes developed by organisms which allow them better chance of survival mean there is higher likelihood of them passing this to their offspring; whereas ones which do not have these attributes, die out through competition within their environment including with other more adaptive organisms, giving less likelihood of them passing these attributes to offspring. A few small developed attributes is typically referred to as "micro-evolution" where as many small attributes on top of one another within a span of time is "macro-evolution"....

Well in this case I'm using "macro-evolution" to refer to one species developing into another species, something we as yet have no conclusive evidence for.

I'm sure I can dig up a few biologists who're divided...

Well in this case I'm using "macro-evolution" to refer to one species developing into another species, something we as yet have no conclusive evidence for.
*buzz* I'm sorry, but you've got it totally wrong. We have observed speciation in the lab.

I'm sure I can dig up a few biologists who're divided...

You go right ahead. You go find all the dissent you can. Then I'll simply reply that dissent is not evidence against the theory of evolution.

Which would be why scientists are so divided over it?

We have evidence for microevolution. We don't have evidence for macroevolution. There's a huge problem there.

What scientists are divided over it? Theologians? Certainly not biologists.
And micro- and marcoevolution are buzz words coined by IDers and creationists. If you want to be taken seriously anywhere in the scientific community, best stay away from them. They've long since been debunked as pseudo-science.

Well in this case I'm using "macro-evolution" to refer to one species developing into another species, something we as yet have no conclusive evidence for.

I'm sure I can dig up a few biologists who're divided...

"Species" is a more or less artificial human concept of grouping animals with similar characterisitcs together. It doesn't form natural barriers.

Well in this case I'm using "macro-evolution" to refer to one species developing into another species, something we as yet have no conclusive evidence for.

I'm sure I can dig up a few biologists who're divided...

Well, when the standard is set at waiting for a horse to turn into a Cow, or an aligator to suddenly spround wings and feathers, you're not going to find any... But when you can look at a fossil progression across hominid lines over millions of years, there is plenty of evidence for it.

"Species" is a more or less artificial human concept of grouping animals with similar characterisitcs together. It doesn't form natural barriers.

Incidentally it does. If two healthy animals can mate and produce viable offsprings, then they are of the same species. That's how species is defined. We observed speciation by separating two groups of fruit flies for some amount of generations, and then discovering that they couldn't mate successfully.

Look at all the facts that are missing, though. There's so much evidence that we just don't have yet.

Such as?


Eh, evolution happens alright. It's just that at present we can't really with any certainty say exactly how it works.

Rather like gravity then. Would you subscribe to an alternative theory to gravity?
Would you subscribe to an alternative theory to gravity, if it did not undermine the Bible?

Well we have fossils that look similar to other fossils, but last I checked we don't have any actual conclusive proof.

Look, I'm not saying evolution's a pile of claptrap, don't get me wrong. All I'm saying is, there's always the possibility of some sort of alternative. And that evolution through some means other than Darwin's natural selection idea is entirely possible.

Eh, forget it. Obviously this conversation's not going anywhere, so we might as well just drop it, eh?


Rather like gravity then. Would you subscribe to an alternative theory to gravity?
Would you subscribe to an alternative theory to gravity, if it did not undermine the Bible?

I'm curious what the bible has to do with this. Particularly seeing as nowhere does evolution undermine it...

Incidentally it does. If two healthy animals can mate and produce viable offsprings, then they are of the same species. That's how species is defined. We observed speciation by separating two groups of fruit flies for some amount of generations, and then discovering that they couldn't mate successfully.

Really? I thought lions and tigers were sepereate species... did I get that wrong somewhere? :confused:

Well we have fossils that look similar to other fossils, but last I checked we don't have any actual conclusive proof.
You are again wrong. Just because you are ignorant of the evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.

Look, I'm not saying evolution's a pile of claptrap, don't get me wrong.
Good for you.
All I'm saying is, there's always the possibility of some sort of alternative.
A rather small possibility, progressively getting smaller.
And that evolution through some means other than Darwin's natural selection idea is entirely possible.
It is just as possible that the sun won't rise tomorrow morning. But don't count on it.

Eh, forget it. Obviously this conversation's not going anywhere, so we might as well just drop it, eh?
If you want. You might have learned something about evolution, but if you'd rather not then I can't make you. Bringing horses to water and all that.

Well we have fossils that look similar to other fossils, but last I checked we don't have any actual conclusive proof.

We've even got mumified dinosaur now... and we can tell they're related to us, if remotely.
What kind of "proof" would you be looking for? Science doesn't offer proof, it just collects evidence and draws conclusions.

Well we have fossils that look similar to other fossils, but last I checked we don't have any actual conclusive proof.

Look, I'm not saying evolution's a pile of claptrap, don't get me wrong. All I'm saying is, there's always the possibility of some sort of alternative. And that evolution through some means other than Darwin's natural selection idea is entirely possible.

Eh, forget it. Obviously this conversation's not going anywhere, so we might as well just drop it, eh?

Run, run, away when the question get too tough and one has to seriously question their faith. Yep seen that before.



I'm curious what the bible has to do with this. Particularly seeing as nowhere does evolution undermine it...

Perhaps we'll get back to to that, but you didn't answer my questions.

Really? I thought lions and tigers were sepereate species... did I get that wrong somewhere? :confused:

Yes. Lions and tigers are both cats. Although it would be.....difficult for a domestic cat to mate with a lion, we could extract the sperm and egg and produce a domestic cat/lion hybrid. Though we'd have PETA on our asses before we could blink.


Well, unless I'm mis-remembering biology class, in which case I'd be rather embarrassed.

Yes. Lions and tigers are both cats. Although it would be.....difficult for a domestic cat to mate with a lion, we could extract the sperm and egg and produce a domestic cat/lion hybrid. Though we'd have PETA on our asses before we could blink.


Well, unless I'm mis-remembering biology class, in which case I'd be rather embarrassed.

Ah, gotcha. Got my classifications wrong again ;) I thought "cat" refered to the family, not the species...

If you want. You might have learned something about evolution, but if you'd rather not then I can't make you. Bringing horses to water and all that.

You know, hurling abuse at people on the internet that you know absolutely nothing about doesn't make you look any cooler. Particularly when they're trying really hard to stay polite. Just saying.

Run, run, away when the question get too tough and one has to seriously question their faith. Yep seen that before.


Actually, faith has nothing to do with this one. As I've said multiple times already, I agree that evolution exists. The evidence is a bit too obvious to disagree with that. I just disagree with the extent to which some people take it.

And I notice no-one's actually pointed out any of these examples you keep telling me about. Most of the ones I've been shown in the past weren't really very good evidence, so I really would like to know if there's something new I've been missing.

You know, hurling abuse at people on the internet that you know absolutely nothing about doesn't make you look any cooler. Particularly when they're trying really hard to stay polite. Just saying.

You found that to be abusive? Some friendly advice, try to grow a thicker skin, especially if you're going to spend time on the internet.

You know, hurling abuse at people on the internet that you know absolutely nothing about doesn't make you look any cooler. Particularly when they're trying really hard to stay polite. Just saying.

Bwahahah no no no, that wasn't abuse. I'm the type to hurl abuse at ya, Ifreann is one of the nicer people around here.

Would you say then that if I accused you of being a typical, 'waaaaa I'm sooo oppressed Christian', that I am being abusive toyou?

And I notice no-one's actually pointed out any of these examples you keep telling me about. Most of the ones I've been shown in the past weren't really very good evidence, so I really would like to know if there's something new I've been missing.

Just try wikipedia. It's a discussion forum, not school ;)

Well we have fossils that look similar to other fossils, but last I checked we don't have any actual conclusive proof.

Look, I'm not saying evolution's a pile of claptrap, don't get me wrong. All I'm saying is, there's always the possibility of some sort of alternative. And that evolution through some means other than Darwin's natural selection idea is entirely possible.

Eh, forget it. Obviously this conversation's not going anywhere, so we might as well just drop it, eh?



I'm curious what the bible has to do with this. Particularly seeing as nowhere does evolution undermine it...

"Natural Selection" is the natural theory which best explains all available evidence; and it will be accepted as such to some other natural theory comes along which better explains it... That's how science works... Aspects Newtonian Physics was held for a long time because it best explained the operations until later on better theories came along... There is no better theory explaining the process of evolution that the adaptive traits of organisms in relation to their environment (which is all "Natural Selection" is at its root)... Within the scientific concept alternatives to the present theoretical framework of evolution are not even "Theory" yet... Alternatives can even barely hold the form of a postulate... One thing you need to realize is that "Theory" in science is as high as you can really get...

Just try wikipedia. It's a discussion forum, not school ;)

Becasue we all know how totally unbiased wikipedia is.

Becasue we all know how totally unbiased wikipedia is.

Perhaps, but it's generally a good starting point.

Becasue we all know how totally unbiased wikipedia is.

Dunno if you ever noticed, they tend to have a good selection of links relevant to the topic at the bottom of each page...

True, true. So how about the following comments?

“The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing.”
G. K. CHESTERTON

“An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing
number of evolutionists...argue that Darwinian evolutionary
theory is no genuine scientific theory at all...Many of the
critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”
MICHAEL RUSE,
“Darwin’s Theory: An Exercise in Science,” New Scientist

Ruse's comment's certainly quite an interesting one, non?

Dunno if you ever noticed, they tend to have a good selection of links relevant to the topic at the bottom of each page...

Go have a look into wikipedian politics. The folk in charge have a habbit of getting rid of anything they don't like. Now, I'm not saying there's some sort of conspiracy involving evolution there, all I'm saying is that especially cocnerning recent events I don't trust them one inch to give an unbiased picture of tic-tac-toe, let alone a complicated scientific theory.

True, true. So how about the following comments?

“The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing.”
G. K. CHESTERTON


Funny. Most biologists will tell you that there is no more missing link. The links between us and our remote ancestors have been well documented throughout the fossil record by now.


“An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing
number of evolutionists...argue that Darwinian evolutionary
theory is no genuine scientific theory at all...Many of the
critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”
MICHAEL RUSE,
“Darwin’s Theory: An Exercise in Science,” New Scientist

Ruse's comment's certainly quite an interesting one, non?

Not really... he doesn't name any of those scientists he's referring to, now, is he? And he doesn't quote any of their works, or even just where they said they have doubts about the validity of the theory of evolution... It's extremely vague, the kind of comment you'd make if you knew that you've got nothing to support yourself.

Go have a look into wikipedian politics. The folk in charge have a habbit of getting rid of anything they don't like. Now, I'm not saying there's some sort of conspiracy involving evolution there, all I'm saying is that especially cocnerning recent events I don't trust them one inch to give an unbiased picture of tic-tac-toe, let alone a complicated scientific theory.

What's politics got to do with anything? And wikipedia is about nobody being in charge in the first place, isn't it?
Besides, I advised to start out by reading the pages they link to, not the wikipedia articles, if you're so scared of that site...

True, true. So how about the following comments?

“The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing.”
G. K. CHESTERTON
Gilbert Keith Chesterton (May 29, 1874–June 14, 1936) was an influential English writer of the early 20th century. His prolific and diverse output included journalism, philosophy, poetry, biography, Christian apologetics, fantasy, and detective fiction.
I should care what this long dead man think about modern science because........?

“An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing
number of evolutionists...argue that Darwinian evolutionary
theory is no genuine scientific theory at all...Many of the
critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”
MICHAEL RUSE,
“Darwin’s Theory: An Exercise in Science,” New Scientist
Michael Ruse (born June 21, 1940 in Birmingham, England) is a philosopher of science, working on the philosophy of the biology, and is well known for his work on the argument between creationism and evolutionary biology.
Close to an actual biologist, I'll admit.
Ruse's comment's certainly quite an interesting one, non?

Non. You see, Darwinian evolution predates things like the discovery of DNA. The Theory of Evolution has been updated quite a bit since Darwin's time. Just like how we now know that Newtonian physics fall apart at the quantum level.

What's politics got to do with anything? And wikipedia is about nobody being in charge in the first place, isn't it?
Besides, I advised to start out by reading the pages they link to, not the wikipedia articles, if you're so scared of that site...

I repeat: the pages they linked to aren't guaranteed to be non-biased.#


I mean, seriously. Weren't you paying attention when the inner circle where caught using a mailing list to discuss people they wanted to ban for making too many useful edits?


Non. You see, Darwinian evolution predates things like the discovery of DNA. The Theory of Evolution has been updated quite a bit since Darwin's time. Just like how we now know that Newtonian physics fall apart at the quantum level.

Eh, fine fine. Let's just agree to disagree? I'll say evolution's part of God's way of creating things but I don't agree entirely with how it's presented, you stick to taking it to the extent you do. Fair?

I repeat: the pages they linked to aren't guaranteed to be non-biased.#


I mean, seriously. Weren't you paying attention when the inner circle where caught using a mailing list to discuss people they wanted to ban for making too many useful edits?


:rolleyes:
Well, if you're so scared that bias could work mind-magic on you, go out and buy a book. There's plenty of those. Or are you scared of bias there as well?


Eh, fine fine. Let's just agree to disagree? I'll say evolution's part of God's way of creating things but I don't agree entirely with how it's presented, you stick to taking it to the extent you do. Fair?

So, basically you refuse to have a look at new information, as it might contradict your pre-formed conclusion?
That would be called religion and/or ignorance, not science.

Go have a look into wikipedian politics. The folk in charge have a habbit of getting rid of anything they don't like. Now, I'm not saying there's some sort of conspiracy involving evolution there, all I'm saying is that especially cocnerning recent events I don't trust them one inch to give an unbiased picture of tic-tac-toe, let alone a complicated scientific theory.


Then may I suggest here: http://scholar.google.co.uk/ instead.

You make a lot of assumptions about me there.

I've been sat doing vvarious searches during this covnersation, ahven't yet found any fossil evidence that actually seems to prove anything.

As for books, yeah, sure, quite happy to go read some of them.

Just, y'know, Amazon doesn't really delivery things within the hour and all so I'll ahve to wait a few days ;)...


So, basically you refuse to have a look at new information, as it might contradict your pre-formed conclusion?
That would be called religion and/or ignorance, not science.


Aaactually, the more new information I find, the more my beliefs are confirmed, ebcasue the more unlikely it seems that such things could have happened without the hand of almighty God involved, so.

Oh, and, uh, I really don't like the term "religion". The whole salvation through works thing's just not nice.

True, true. So how about the following comments?

“The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link except the fact that it is missing.”
G. K. CHESTERTON

“An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing
number of evolutionists...argue that Darwinian evolutionary
theory is no genuine scientific theory at all...Many of the
critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”
MICHAEL RUSE,
“Darwin’s Theory: An Exercise in Science,” New Scientist

Ruse's comment's certainly quite an interesting one, non?



Go have a look into wikipedian politics. The folk in charge have a habbit of getting rid of anything they don't like. Now, I'm not saying there's some sort of conspiracy involving evolution there, all I'm saying is that especially cocnerning recent events I don't trust them one inch to give an unbiased picture of tic-tac-toe, let alone a complicated scientific theory.

While I like Chesterton as a commentator he's alittle dated on the Evolutionary debate, given that Darwinian "Natural Selection" is not the single operative within the theory, but shares its place with genetic drift and gene flow as component operatives as well... He also predates many modern evolutionary experiments...

Ruse is a philosopher, not a scientist... Though I will agree that "Darwinian Evolution" is no theory at all; it was a postulate... which became the basis for the present Theory of Evolution.... Which does meet the scientific criteria for a "Theory"... It provides a logical model of observation, and laboratory tests (e.g. Fruit Fly tests as mentioned by Ifreann) have shown speciation development in accordance with evolutionary models.

You make a lot of assumptions about me there.

I've been sat doing vvarious searches during this covnersation, ahven't yet found any fossil evidence that actually seems to prove anything.

As for books, yeah, sure, quite happy to go read some of them.

Just, y'know, Amazon doesn't really delivery things within the hour and all so I'll ahve to wait a few days ;)...




Aaactually, the more new information I find, the more my beliefs are confirmed, ebcasue the more unlikely it seems that such things could have happened without the hand of almighty God involved, so.

Oh, and, uh, I really don't like the term "religion". The whole salvation through works thing's just not nice.


I'll look up some informative pages when I get home later, I can't really do that here at work.

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Yes it is possible there are many teachings that have only recently now become accepted by people of all faiths such as the teaching that all races and all people are created equally and are of the same level there are plenty of others like The Golden Rule

I have a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet still embrace the teachings of Jesus Christ?

The real question would probably be something about why one should attribute the 'teachings of Christ' to the christ figure. Doing so is more a convenience than a statement that those precepts originated with one man.

But, those values most usually referred to as Christlike? Sure - except for the 'personal relationship with god' stuff, obviously.

I repeat: the pages they linked to aren't guaranteed to be non-biased.#


Bias is irrelevent.

Sure - it should always be considered, when analysing a source - but it doesn't actually invalidate any of the data available through a source. It just means you should view it with appropriate concern, and consider it in the light of corroboration.

Example: Just because all the New Testament texts were written by neo-nascent 'christians', doesn't automatically make them all fictional. On the other hand - the fact that none of the fairly spectacular claims are corroborated elsewhere, might be considered a bit of a blow.

I mean - Rome was good at the 'reporting' stuff, but failed to notice a zombie invasion in one of the provinces?