This all started because I got an Alpha Course pamphlet on my desk. (It was placed as a joke.)
We all have those 'awareness' moments. The sense of 'I' and sometimes they can be pretty intense! Impending, unstoppable death. Why are we here? Looking at your family and realising one day you will say a final goodbye to them and hope that they understand the joy they have brought to your life. Weighing up whether you have done enough positive things to merit people thinking you are a good person. Railing against injustice in the world and overcoming a feeling of powerlessness when things are wrong in society.
Blimey, no wonder people turn to a religious comfort blanket!
The benefits are obvious:
They say you will go to a heaven and be blissfully happy FOREVER! (Because this wonderful planet is not good enough.)
That a benevolent being is looking after you. (Provided you accept the correct being - there are, after all, SO MANY false gods! Irony.)
You will have a moral compass. (Because you didn't have one before - think of it as a free gift when you join.)
And be a better person. (Although you are not allowed to say that - that's rude. But all the gang secretly know it.)
But choosing and believing in what is (statistically a certainty) a lie/ misrepresentation/ false hope/ a con/ cult/ wishful thinking/ ignorance/ brainwashing/ threat/ etc. [delete as appropriate] is such an injustice to understanding.
So it might make them happy. I'm not authorised to deny them their happiness. Good luck to them.
Some claim to have no doubt. And these are the ones I feel most pity for. It's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and denying all possibilities. A fear of being wrong. To have that sense of being special, the Earth being made specifically for YOU, taken away.
Am I a shameless zombie, denying a god's loving light? Am I ungrateful whelp, deserving of a punishment from a all powerful being? Am I tainted by a devil's knowledge, intent on corrupting the kind and good? Am I clearly too STUPID not to see what makes religious people so blissfully happy?
No.
My mind is open to all the possibilities. I have been vainly trying to find some, any, evidence for existence of a god. I would go to an Alpha course with an open mind, but I could not bear the thought of being 'taught' by someone who has closed their minds to the possibility that they don't need their metaphysical metaphors to lead a good life.
I have NEVER met an atheist who has stated that there is no god AND states that there is no evidence that they would accept to change their minds. Theists on the other hand HAVE to think this way. (It's 100% or nothing!)
And the insulting fallacy is that some theists see this as a weakness. (Hey! They could be persuaded!) Or have the cheek to call us close minded!
And this is why I feel so sorry for theists.
Just bask in the chaos of nature, the almost infinite random possibilities that lead us to this exact point in time, appreciate that we are creatures made from stars, that there is wonder in the expanses of space, beauty in a single grain of sand, that all life on this planet is connected...
We are all monkeys with big brains. If only some of us would use it more.
Showing posts with label Darwin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darwin. Show all posts
Sunday, 20 September 2009
Saturday, 16 May 2009
Richard Dawkins interview & Anti-religious bell ringing
Bit of a short post, but here are two links you might be interested in. :-)
The 5 minute Richard Dawkins interview
And Liverpool Cathedral will play an 'anti-religious' song with the church bells today!
The 5 minute Richard Dawkins interview
And Liverpool Cathedral will play an 'anti-religious' song with the church bells today!
Friday, 8 May 2009
Challenging science
The nice christian, JL, in her quest to convert my (rather pleasant) heathen ways went on the attack about carbon dating and it's 'wildly inaccurate' results.
Being on the back foot, I had some misconceptions about carbon dating but, in my defence, they were craftily worded fundie traps which I fell into. (eg. saying that carbon dating cannot measure age of fossils, so what proof is there?)
However, EVEN IF carbon dating methods were wrong, just because 'the bible says so' is not magically the only viable alternative. *sigh*
Tree rings are accurate to 9000 years. Pay attention - this is something most kids learn in primary school! You won't find a 50 year old tree with thousands of rings. NEWSFLASH - Trees predate the Abrahamic god! "But the bible says the sky pixie made trees! Whhhaaaahhh!!!!"
Redshift - How light frequency is affected by the fantastical speeds of astronomical phenomena moving away from us (creating light towards the infra red spectrum)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8022917.stm
Carbon dating is a very good way of estimating. The biggest inaccuracies have occured when objects of 20000 years old have had an error of 3500 years. An error margin of up to 17%.
Even accounting for this extreme measure - hmmm - basic maths here - more than 6000 years!
The trap I fell into (because I simply don't know everything) was that you cannot use carbon dating for fossils. (Or diamonds, which are REALLY old! I just assumed that being made of carbon... doh!).
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
The above link explains more concisely the methods used and refutes the claims of creationist (and I use the word sarcastically) 'scientists'.
JL's mission was to get me to doubt scientific reasoning and to not take scientific opinion as the truth. And yes, we SHOULD not just believe everything we hear. We must make informed decisions based on evidence. We must be willing to accept that with our limited knowledge and senses (we can only see a razor thin slice of the EM spectrum for example) that we will make mistakes and improve upon our knowledge.
And that is what I love about science. For every opinion, theory and proposal in the public domain, it must be tested, scrutinised and every possible attempt is made to prove it wrong or come up with a better explanation with the evidence and reasoning to back it up. It is inspiring, it is challenging, it is dangerous, it gives us the tools to make sense of this amazing existence... it is truly humbling to realise that there is so much in existence that we will never know.
What I find demeaning, insulting, patronising, illogical and offensive to human intellect is that theists label 'don't know' with 'god'.
Science has been answering many 'don't knows' for centuries. People no longer need to fear myths and superstitions; worry about angering vengeful gods; conduct strange rituals; wear lucky charms etc. Thanks to science, we have grown up and matured as a species.
Science is not the enemy of religion but religion has suffered because of it. Ahhh, life was so much SIMPLER 6000 years ago.
Conclusion: Just because science freely admits the limits of our understanding and is constantly trying to improve its knowledge doesn't make the bible true! (Bl**dy obvious I know, but SOME PEOPLE... tsk)
Being on the back foot, I had some misconceptions about carbon dating but, in my defence, they were craftily worded fundie traps which I fell into. (eg. saying that carbon dating cannot measure age of fossils, so what proof is there?)
However, EVEN IF carbon dating methods were wrong, just because 'the bible says so' is not magically the only viable alternative. *sigh*
Tree rings are accurate to 9000 years. Pay attention - this is something most kids learn in primary school! You won't find a 50 year old tree with thousands of rings. NEWSFLASH - Trees predate the Abrahamic god! "But the bible says the sky pixie made trees! Whhhaaaahhh!!!!"
Redshift - How light frequency is affected by the fantastical speeds of astronomical phenomena moving away from us (creating light towards the infra red spectrum)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8022917.stm
Carbon dating is a very good way of estimating. The biggest inaccuracies have occured when objects of 20000 years old have had an error of 3500 years. An error margin of up to 17%.
Even accounting for this extreme measure - hmmm - basic maths here - more than 6000 years!
The trap I fell into (because I simply don't know everything) was that you cannot use carbon dating for fossils. (Or diamonds, which are REALLY old! I just assumed that being made of carbon... doh!).
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
The above link explains more concisely the methods used and refutes the claims of creationist (and I use the word sarcastically) 'scientists'.
JL's mission was to get me to doubt scientific reasoning and to not take scientific opinion as the truth. And yes, we SHOULD not just believe everything we hear. We must make informed decisions based on evidence. We must be willing to accept that with our limited knowledge and senses (we can only see a razor thin slice of the EM spectrum for example) that we will make mistakes and improve upon our knowledge.
And that is what I love about science. For every opinion, theory and proposal in the public domain, it must be tested, scrutinised and every possible attempt is made to prove it wrong or come up with a better explanation with the evidence and reasoning to back it up. It is inspiring, it is challenging, it is dangerous, it gives us the tools to make sense of this amazing existence... it is truly humbling to realise that there is so much in existence that we will never know.
What I find demeaning, insulting, patronising, illogical and offensive to human intellect is that theists label 'don't know' with 'god'.
Science has been answering many 'don't knows' for centuries. People no longer need to fear myths and superstitions; worry about angering vengeful gods; conduct strange rituals; wear lucky charms etc. Thanks to science, we have grown up and matured as a species.
Science is not the enemy of religion but religion has suffered because of it. Ahhh, life was so much SIMPLER 6000 years ago.
Conclusion: Just because science freely admits the limits of our understanding and is constantly trying to improve its knowledge doesn't make the bible true! (Bl**dy obvious I know, but SOME PEOPLE... tsk)
Thursday, 7 May 2009
Conversations with a (nice) christian.
This is a response to my 'Alpha Course' post. (If it has scrolled off the bottom of the page then 'clicky!' )
'JL' is one of those nice christians who (in my experience) make up the majority of christians that are willing to talk to me. Currently we are in the middle of a friendly 'holy war' at our school, where she is trying to get me to appreciate Jesus and I am bestowing the gift of Pastafarian knowledge. I have shown her undeniable evidence of FSM's power by making her jump and pointing out how the kind FSM brings her safely back to Earth with his noodly appendages. (He loves us all and keeps us safe - FACT!)
Randomfish, I believe I might even have been the long-haired born-again that suggested an Alpha course to you.
Yep, The most recent one.
It's not like you have anything to lose, anyway :-p
Well, my scientific reasoning for one...
re: 'based on a relationship, not knowledge'
It always makes me smile that people get so OUTRAGED that the Bible is younger than Jesus, or at least most of it. That it's been *gasp* ADDED TO(!!!111) over the years. Of course it has. Ours is a living God. He didn't just speak once 6000 years ago (you heard right, DB!) and that was it. If you develop a relationship with your living God, he will speak to you. And he will tell you do not have a religion based on laws, you have a new life based on His loving gospel.
We agree here. Religion (especially christianity) has evolved. It has HAD to! Let's face it, if we had the same thinking as we did 1000 years ago, you would look pretty stupid now.
We don't get ill because god is punishing us. We get better because we 1) take medicine or 2) naturally get better over time.
Gods don't live in the sky. We are not the centre of the universe. Evolution is happening. The Earth is over 6000 years old. Morality is not owned by any religion...
Damn those astronomers, doctors, biologists, historians, geologists, philosophers...! They have had to make those crrraaaazzzyyy christians do some drastic rejigging of what to believe! LOL.
'Faith is more important than logic'
Logic is more important than blind faith. Blind faith is an insult to intelligence and reason. Blind faith can be harmful. For example, feel my pain when Arsenal lose! (Thankfully rarely!)
Don't pretend that you have faith in nothing, that faith in itself is ridiculous. You have faith in love, if nothing else, surely.
I DO have faith in humanity; kindness of strangers; love and hope. They are essential for understanding our humanity. I just don't attribute an imaginary friend to fill the gaps in knowledge.
Logic tells me that you can't get evolution from one species to another, only within species. Science tells me that even after thousands and thousands of generations of fly mutations, a fly is still a fly. So how did every living species in the world evolve from a fish? Including, presumably: turnips, scabies mite, chinchillas, sharks etc etc? Are you not putting your faith in a straaaange theory of evolution, hmmmmmm? ;)
Fellow humanists/ atheists, JL is a really nice person and please do not judge someone on their lack of understanding of evolution.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/different-patterns-of-evolution.html
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/sat-ii-biology-understanding-origins-of-life.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
'Because of who god is, we will always have questions'
Of course. And let's face it, when Jesus came and proclaimed himself the Son of God, not many people believed him, and what more proof could God really give us? Perhaps you would like a book full of graphs and diagrams, haha.
I proclaim to be the leader of Alpha Centauri. Can you see the problem with that? Jesus was not the first prophet to claim to lead the Jews. He happened to be the most famous. Stories told, generations later, wrote the gospels with a bias to make him more holy. Events were taken from a wide variety of religions (resurrection, death on a cross, virgin birth, claim of godhood, miracles, 12 followers, betrayal, ascension) sometimes even directly rewriting existing religions. See Dionysus, Osiris, Mithra...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa3.htm
Jesus, the man, existed.
Jesus, the son of a god, sadly (but it would actually have been rather groovy) is HIGHLY UNLIKELY. More likely a work of fiction and copyright theft.
"You are sinners and in need of a lord and saviour".
Hell for you probably isn't the same idea of hell for me. I think there is a cartoon idea based on lakes of fire with a little red devil with pitchforks. In reality, to me anyway, hell is death; it is separation from love and joy; from contentment and safety and the Lord. For me, now that I know the Lord, no pit of burning sulphur could ever hold as much sadness and fear as separation from His love. But that's just me.
Ahh, you refer to the 'nice' Hell. Depends on how literally one takes the bible doesn't it? Even Jesus refers to Gehenna.
Two very useful sites below
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html
and this is pure class.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hellreal.htm (This nutter is doing theism no favours!)
And finally...
My final point I made in a rather fun theological debate is that JL is ACTUALLY a 'humanist with an imaginary friend'.
Peace to you all.
'JL' is one of those nice christians who (in my experience) make up the majority of christians that are willing to talk to me. Currently we are in the middle of a friendly 'holy war' at our school, where she is trying to get me to appreciate Jesus and I am bestowing the gift of Pastafarian knowledge. I have shown her undeniable evidence of FSM's power by making her jump and pointing out how the kind FSM brings her safely back to Earth with his noodly appendages. (He loves us all and keeps us safe - FACT!)
Randomfish, I believe I might even have been the long-haired born-again that suggested an Alpha course to you.
Yep, The most recent one.
It's not like you have anything to lose, anyway :-p
Well, my scientific reasoning for one...
re: 'based on a relationship, not knowledge'
It always makes me smile that people get so OUTRAGED that the Bible is younger than Jesus, or at least most of it. That it's been *gasp* ADDED TO(!!!111) over the years. Of course it has. Ours is a living God. He didn't just speak once 6000 years ago (you heard right, DB!) and that was it. If you develop a relationship with your living God, he will speak to you. And he will tell you do not have a religion based on laws, you have a new life based on His loving gospel.
We agree here. Religion (especially christianity) has evolved. It has HAD to! Let's face it, if we had the same thinking as we did 1000 years ago, you would look pretty stupid now.
We don't get ill because god is punishing us. We get better because we 1) take medicine or 2) naturally get better over time.
Gods don't live in the sky. We are not the centre of the universe. Evolution is happening. The Earth is over 6000 years old. Morality is not owned by any religion...
Damn those astronomers, doctors, biologists, historians, geologists, philosophers...! They have had to make those crrraaaazzzyyy christians do some drastic rejigging of what to believe! LOL.
'Faith is more important than logic'
Logic is more important than blind faith. Blind faith is an insult to intelligence and reason. Blind faith can be harmful. For example, feel my pain when Arsenal lose! (Thankfully rarely!)
Don't pretend that you have faith in nothing, that faith in itself is ridiculous. You have faith in love, if nothing else, surely.
I DO have faith in humanity; kindness of strangers; love and hope. They are essential for understanding our humanity. I just don't attribute an imaginary friend to fill the gaps in knowledge.
Logic tells me that you can't get evolution from one species to another, only within species. Science tells me that even after thousands and thousands of generations of fly mutations, a fly is still a fly. So how did every living species in the world evolve from a fish? Including, presumably: turnips, scabies mite, chinchillas, sharks etc etc? Are you not putting your faith in a straaaange theory of evolution, hmmmmmm? ;)
Fellow humanists/ atheists, JL is a really nice person and please do not judge someone on their lack of understanding of evolution.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/different-patterns-of-evolution.html
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/sat-ii-biology-understanding-origins-of-life.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
'Because of who god is, we will always have questions'
Of course. And let's face it, when Jesus came and proclaimed himself the Son of God, not many people believed him, and what more proof could God really give us? Perhaps you would like a book full of graphs and diagrams, haha.
I proclaim to be the leader of Alpha Centauri. Can you see the problem with that? Jesus was not the first prophet to claim to lead the Jews. He happened to be the most famous. Stories told, generations later, wrote the gospels with a bias to make him more holy. Events were taken from a wide variety of religions (resurrection, death on a cross, virgin birth, claim of godhood, miracles, 12 followers, betrayal, ascension) sometimes even directly rewriting existing religions. See Dionysus, Osiris, Mithra...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa3.htm
Jesus, the man, existed.
Jesus, the son of a god, sadly (but it would actually have been rather groovy) is HIGHLY UNLIKELY. More likely a work of fiction and copyright theft.
"You are sinners and in need of a lord and saviour".
Hell for you probably isn't the same idea of hell for me. I think there is a cartoon idea based on lakes of fire with a little red devil with pitchforks. In reality, to me anyway, hell is death; it is separation from love and joy; from contentment and safety and the Lord. For me, now that I know the Lord, no pit of burning sulphur could ever hold as much sadness and fear as separation from His love. But that's just me.
Ahh, you refer to the 'nice' Hell. Depends on how literally one takes the bible doesn't it? Even Jesus refers to Gehenna.
Two very useful sites below
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/jesusteachingonhell.html
and this is pure class.
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/hellreal.htm (This nutter is doing theism no favours!)
And finally...
My final point I made in a rather fun theological debate is that JL is ACTUALLY a 'humanist with an imaginary friend'.
Peace to you all.
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Thought for the day... The really convincing story!
Let me get this right...
According to Catholics - there is this three in one god who impregnated a virgin so he could then be born and sacrificed himself on a cross to save his own creation from his own wrath. All because a woman, who was made out of a rib, surprised him (an all knowing-god) by being convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magic tree. He then, temporarily, came back from the dead (being 'all-powerful' has advantages; the sacrifice wasn't permanent), we should all eat his flesh, drink his blood, talk telepathically to him whilst being constantly reminded we are all sinners (still!).
Failure to believe in this will result in a constant, unbelievable agony for eternity.
... yeah. Evolution is just soooo stupid.
I know there have been similar posts from other bloggers like this, but it feels good to remind ourselves what we are arguing against. (sigh)
According to Catholics - there is this three in one god who impregnated a virgin so he could then be born and sacrificed himself on a cross to save his own creation from his own wrath. All because a woman, who was made out of a rib, surprised him (an all knowing-god) by being convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magic tree. He then, temporarily, came back from the dead (being 'all-powerful' has advantages; the sacrifice wasn't permanent), we should all eat his flesh, drink his blood, talk telepathically to him whilst being constantly reminded we are all sinners (still!).
Failure to believe in this will result in a constant, unbelievable agony for eternity.
... yeah. Evolution is just soooo stupid.
I know there have been similar posts from other bloggers like this, but it feels good to remind ourselves what we are arguing against. (sigh)
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Proofs of God - part 2 - Intelligent design?
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
I only just found this today. If you haven't read it, it's worth a quick chuckle. :-)
Anyway, in my further attemps to find god(s) I am looking at 'Intelligent design'
The basic argument of creationists is "Concept and design necessitate an intelligent designer. The presence of intelligent design proves the existence of an intelligent designer." And then they go on to explain how a watch can't spontaneously appear. Animals are in a food web, simple cells are far too complex, the human eye, half a wing... the list is quite impressive!
You will have to forgive me, I am trying to blend an entire branch of science and popular mythology into a single post and hopefully trying to find some 'truth' :-) I'll try not to cause too much offense to either side.
Well, often the simplest idea is the best. And you don't get much simpler than ID. Why, it just explains EVERYTHING! So I suppose I could just go to bed happy (and many people do!)
Good night!
I see you are still here... thanks!
But the principle of ID is the single premise that there HAS to be a creator for there to be... 'stuff'. And where is the proof of that? Er... the bible says so. I don't believe that there were any first hand witnesses to creation... except god. And the bible isn't exactly accurate at times. (Seriously, don't even bother to argue that. You WILL look stupid.)
OK, we have the fact that we are incredibly complex and even the simplest forms of life have intricate systems that are quite simply... amazing! But the idea is that we were all designed this way. Pre-constructed and ready to go! Every creature on the planet has a role to play, every plant has a reason, nature is primed and set up for humans to live in perfect harmony on Earth...
And along came Charles Darwin with his dangerous idea: every species on the planet has evolved and adapted to their environments. Not put on the planet, by a god, but changed over thousands - millions - of years to survive and breed. Not necessarily 'Survival of the fittest' - that is just the 'TV soundbite' version which oversimplifies the process, but a series of almost insignificant, sometimes random changes or mutations that sometimes improve the chance of the species' survival.
This seems to make sense. Our similarity to other primates, cavemen, fossils, extinction of dinosaurs, the age of the Earth, the purpose of the appendix, 'junk' DNA, actual observed changes in species...
...or because the bible says so. Creationists (some of them), to their credit, look to science to explain their creation theory. And there are some great websites out there. However, for the purposes of my research, I tend to look at sites that contain both sides of the argument. http://www.talkorigins.org is possibly the best mix of debates you can come across on the internet. Evolutionists need their theories challenged! That is what makes science so awe inspiring. The fact it is allowed to be disproved, improved or debated.
http://www.evcforum.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy
So if Darwin is correct, then the claim that we are made in god's image is simply wrong and it brings into doubt the validity of the bible and its claims made in the book of Genesis.
If the bible is correct, then we have all this evidence that attempts to disprove the bible. What would be the purpose in that? Perhaps it is an elaborate miracle that is there to test the faithful and punish the reasoned thinkers. Seems a bit unfair to me. (I'm one of those people who always look both ways before crossing the road.)
The catholic stance has changed over the centuries. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ You can believe in god and accept evolution - the modern christian idea is that god must have had some part in the process and accept that the Genesis story is just an allegory.
Lo and behold! And there we have proof of religious evolution! ;-)
Intelligent design? I'm not even sure that we are designed that well! We are prone to illnesses, injuries, back problems, limited understanding or our surroundings, easily fooled by illusions, misinterpret information, violent by nature, subject to a range of emotions, take risks needlessly, have a method of reproduction that can be quite dangerous, the list could go on... We are NOT designed 'intelligently'! Unless of course, this 'god' has a warped sense of humour!
My conclusion? Evolution has, by far, the greatest wealth of evidence supporting it. It does not explain why there is life but shows us our place in nature. Not as chosen masters, but as part of an amazing journey with nature.
I only just found this today. If you haven't read it, it's worth a quick chuckle. :-)
Anyway, in my further attemps to find god(s) I am looking at 'Intelligent design'
The basic argument of creationists is "Concept and design necessitate an intelligent designer. The presence of intelligent design proves the existence of an intelligent designer." And then they go on to explain how a watch can't spontaneously appear. Animals are in a food web, simple cells are far too complex, the human eye, half a wing... the list is quite impressive!
You will have to forgive me, I am trying to blend an entire branch of science and popular mythology into a single post and hopefully trying to find some 'truth' :-) I'll try not to cause too much offense to either side.
Well, often the simplest idea is the best. And you don't get much simpler than ID. Why, it just explains EVERYTHING! So I suppose I could just go to bed happy (and many people do!)
Good night!
I see you are still here... thanks!
But the principle of ID is the single premise that there HAS to be a creator for there to be... 'stuff'. And where is the proof of that? Er... the bible says so. I don't believe that there were any first hand witnesses to creation... except god. And the bible isn't exactly accurate at times. (Seriously, don't even bother to argue that. You WILL look stupid.)
OK, we have the fact that we are incredibly complex and even the simplest forms of life have intricate systems that are quite simply... amazing! But the idea is that we were all designed this way. Pre-constructed and ready to go! Every creature on the planet has a role to play, every plant has a reason, nature is primed and set up for humans to live in perfect harmony on Earth...
And along came Charles Darwin with his dangerous idea: every species on the planet has evolved and adapted to their environments. Not put on the planet, by a god, but changed over thousands - millions - of years to survive and breed. Not necessarily 'Survival of the fittest' - that is just the 'TV soundbite' version which oversimplifies the process, but a series of almost insignificant, sometimes random changes or mutations that sometimes improve the chance of the species' survival.
This seems to make sense. Our similarity to other primates, cavemen, fossils, extinction of dinosaurs, the age of the Earth, the purpose of the appendix, 'junk' DNA, actual observed changes in species...
...or because the bible says so. Creationists (some of them), to their credit, look to science to explain their creation theory. And there are some great websites out there. However, for the purposes of my research, I tend to look at sites that contain both sides of the argument. http://www.talkorigins.org is possibly the best mix of debates you can come across on the internet. Evolutionists need their theories challenged! That is what makes science so awe inspiring. The fact it is allowed to be disproved, improved or debated.
http://www.evcforum.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy
So if Darwin is correct, then the claim that we are made in god's image is simply wrong and it brings into doubt the validity of the bible and its claims made in the book of Genesis.
If the bible is correct, then we have all this evidence that attempts to disprove the bible. What would be the purpose in that? Perhaps it is an elaborate miracle that is there to test the faithful and punish the reasoned thinkers. Seems a bit unfair to me. (I'm one of those people who always look both ways before crossing the road.)
The catholic stance has changed over the centuries. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ You can believe in god and accept evolution - the modern christian idea is that god must have had some part in the process and accept that the Genesis story is just an allegory.
Lo and behold! And there we have proof of religious evolution! ;-)
Intelligent design? I'm not even sure that we are designed that well! We are prone to illnesses, injuries, back problems, limited understanding or our surroundings, easily fooled by illusions, misinterpret information, violent by nature, subject to a range of emotions, take risks needlessly, have a method of reproduction that can be quite dangerous, the list could go on... We are NOT designed 'intelligently'! Unless of course, this 'god' has a warped sense of humour!
My conclusion? Evolution has, by far, the greatest wealth of evidence supporting it. It does not explain why there is life but shows us our place in nature. Not as chosen masters, but as part of an amazing journey with nature.
Monday, 13 April 2009
Faith, Darwin and superstitions in the UK
Fascinating report on Faith in the UK.
http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/Faith_and_Darwin.aspx?ArticleID=2911&PageID=6&RefPageID=5
It shows that the UK is a varied mix of beliefs in religions and, more surprisingly, an increase in superstitious ideas. I haven't read it all yet, but it's good to share. :-)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7996187.stm
The BBC link contains a summary of some of the points, but still suggests that we are an increasingly secular society.
Only 55% believe in a heaven. (But 70% believe in a soul)
4 in 10 believe in ghosts? 27% believe in reincarnation?
22% in horoscopes! (Oh come on!)
Seems that as some people turn from religion, they still feel the need fill their minds with irrational 'gap fillers'.
I'm really looking forward to the theistic viewpoint of this survey. Will they see it as a 'further moral decline'? Will it be condemned as an irrational false belief? (The irony would probably escape them!) Will it lead to us all suffering eternal damnation by the devil as we veer from the true path of christ? Will they blame atheists?
http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/Faith_and_Darwin.aspx?ArticleID=2911&PageID=6&RefPageID=5
It shows that the UK is a varied mix of beliefs in religions and, more surprisingly, an increase in superstitious ideas. I haven't read it all yet, but it's good to share. :-)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7996187.stm
The BBC link contains a summary of some of the points, but still suggests that we are an increasingly secular society.
Only 55% believe in a heaven. (But 70% believe in a soul)
4 in 10 believe in ghosts? 27% believe in reincarnation?
22% in horoscopes! (Oh come on!)
Seems that as some people turn from religion, they still feel the need fill their minds with irrational 'gap fillers'.
I'm really looking forward to the theistic viewpoint of this survey. Will they see it as a 'further moral decline'? Will it be condemned as an irrational false belief? (The irony would probably escape them!) Will it lead to us all suffering eternal damnation by the devil as we veer from the true path of christ? Will they blame atheists?
Thursday, 19 February 2009
Darwin's deathbed conversion? And mine..?
With the celebration of Darwin Day still ringing in my ears, it was curious that one person mentioned to me about Darwin's conversion on his deathbed to christianity.
It's taken a few days for me to give it the consideration it deserves. I have given a few links at the bottom of this article (neutral, atheist and religious).
Number 1: The story has been discredited. All the evidence available suggests that this was a extremely unlikely event. Lady Hope seems a rather biased witness and members of Darwin's own family, who were present, deny such an event took place.
Number 2: Even if he did, so what? The evidence for evolution is still intact. Creationism is still a ridiculous conclusion as an alternative.
Sadly a desperate attempt to discredit a great man's life work. Yet, even today, there are people who still propogate this lie as a 'fact' to prove they are right. (Top tip - At least have the courtesy to do a tiny bit of research first.)
And finally... Some of my family are religious. If it helped them, then I would agree to a full blown, bells and whistles, super lovely christian funeral. I WOULD BE DEAD so it wouldn't matter to me. Sad to think that they might consider me spit roasted on a red hot poker suffering eternal torment if I didn't. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathbed_conversion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Hope
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html
http://brethrenassembly.com/archives/692
http://www.creationtips.com/darwinconversion.htm
Hats off to Richard Dawkins who says that he wants his death recorded so there will be no possible accustaion of a deathbed conversion. ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzZ7VkDGuPc
It's taken a few days for me to give it the consideration it deserves. I have given a few links at the bottom of this article (neutral, atheist and religious).
Number 1: The story has been discredited. All the evidence available suggests that this was a extremely unlikely event. Lady Hope seems a rather biased witness and members of Darwin's own family, who were present, deny such an event took place.
Number 2: Even if he did, so what? The evidence for evolution is still intact. Creationism is still a ridiculous conclusion as an alternative.
Sadly a desperate attempt to discredit a great man's life work. Yet, even today, there are people who still propogate this lie as a 'fact' to prove they are right. (Top tip - At least have the courtesy to do a tiny bit of research first.)
And finally... Some of my family are religious. If it helped them, then I would agree to a full blown, bells and whistles, super lovely christian funeral. I WOULD BE DEAD so it wouldn't matter to me. Sad to think that they might consider me spit roasted on a red hot poker suffering eternal torment if I didn't. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathbed_conversion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Hope
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html
http://brethrenassembly.com/archives/692
http://www.creationtips.com/darwinconversion.htm
Hats off to Richard Dawkins who says that he wants his death recorded so there will be no possible accustaion of a deathbed conversion. ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzZ7VkDGuPc
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
200th Anniversary of Darwin's Birth
This should be a national holiday
http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/208
To celebrate a great man who opened the eyes of millions; a genius who has inspired generations; an adventurer that travelled the world in search of the truth.
A man who, with one brave book, showed creationism to be an absurd, nonsensical, narrow-minded waste of intellect.
12th February - HAPPY DARWIN DAY! :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
