<p>Not all parts of evolution are false.</p>
<p>"Who do you think created the Universe, the planets? OPRAH?"</p>
<p>Here's my belief:</p>
<p>I don't know who made the universe, but the odds of it being the Judeo-Christian God are pretty slim.</p>
<p>I find it arrogant that humans believe that they can understand God (if it exists). It's just something that if it exists, is completely beyond comprehension. I don't believe God dictates morality and if it does, we have no way of ever knowing. Often what people attribute to God are just projections of ideas and things they've created.</p>
<p>Evolution isn't only about God making the earth topics like the canaries on thhe galapagos Islands fall into the category as well.</p>
<p>Christianity has become so far from what being christlike actually is, that you can not define christianity as emulating the life of christ. </p>
<p>Christ would have never hurt gays the way christians do
Christ would have never supported the crusades, etc. </p>
<p>Religion is just a tool used to control the masses.- as Marx said it best.</p>
<p>In this day in time I don't think it is used to control the masses but I do agree that Christ wouldn't have done those things and that we as christians have blurred the lines of being christ-like</p>
<p>Evolution isn't a question of faith, it's a question of fact--To quote Project Steve,</p>
<p>"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."</p>
<p>'Nuff said. You won't be hearing from me anymore about evolution. Stay in your bubble of ignorance if you wish.</p>
<p>Now to address your (intellectually challenging, I might add) post, Psyche:</p>
<p>I believe your refutation of my argument is based on the rejection of something you've taken to be an assumption, when in fact it has been previously established. I will reiterate:</p>
<p>According to Christian doctrine, Jesus Christ dies in order to save humanity from its sins. However, the fact that he is able to do this implies a sort of "scapegoating" mechanism. As was the original topic of this thread, I ask why this should work. Among the various attempts to address it, none have explained why it ought to be permissible for sins to be transferred onto another (this is where I got the "cash" analogy you thought to be a straw man). Therefore, either an explanation exists (which seems doubtful) or we must conclude that Jesus' death saves humanity due simply to a divine fiat--because "God says so."</p>
<p>What does this mean? If God can dictate the rules for sin, repentance, and guilt, and he can decide that one can be made worthy through another's death, then it implies a solution to the dichotomy of God's nature. We've all heard the dilemma: Either what God does is moral or God only does moral things. Since he can apparently dictate that it is moral to transfer sins like money into a bank account, as Jesus does, then logically, the Bible endorses the first explanation, that God's actions define morality, rather than the other way around.</p>
<p>However, we must also recognize that acting morally necessitates a choice on the part of the individual to act morally (I believe we agree on this point). Thus, any individual who cannot choose morality cannot act morally. Because anything God does is automatically moral, according to the above paragraph, then he literally cannot choose whether or not to act morally. Because he cannot choose, then, he cannot be moral, and is in fact amoral. However, since we have presupposed that God is moral, then he cannot also be amoral. Because the conclusion of this argument leads to a contradiction, we must reject the premise, that Jesus died for our sins.</p>
<p>OK I wish to speak with believers in God now, thank you very much.</p>
<p>Believers: has God answered your prayers? I'm just curious. I've been waiting 2 years, and no answers.</p>
<p>And by the way, this is what Isaac Newton said on Atheism:</p>
<p>""Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." --- Isaac Newton</p>
<p>even HE acknowledges the fact that Oprah did not create the Universe!!</p>
<p>Now I will address your objections:</p>
<p>In the first paragraph of your response, you argue that we are obligated to good in the same way that we are obligated to physical laws. I disagree. There is no way to defy the statement "2+2=5." If I try to do math with this assumption, it won't make any sense. If I believe that gravity doesn't exist, I won't float off the face of the Earth. However, I can choose to act in any way I wish. No one seems to be able to agree on exactly what good is, which is evidence against your assertion that it is just "part of our nature." If that were so, would it not be objectively obvious, just as the laws of nature are? You are essentially comparing apples and oranges: because you are comparing the "ought" of morality to the "is" of the physical universe, your analogy fails.</p>
<p>Your next argument, as far as I can tell, attempts to establish that God does indeed choose to be moral, and that he just chooses morality. This is basically the other side of the coin, as it is based on the assumption that God only does moral things, as opposed to the "what God does is moral" scenario, which I have argued is the logical conclusion of the Christian paradigm. If you wish to dispute this, then feel free to do so, but I believe my reasoning to that effect is logically sound. Additionally, your assertion that "The good man has a choice whether to be a good man or not, but our calling him a good man is dependent on his remaining good" fails to apply to the Christian God because, as I have attempted to establish, God cannot be immoral, no matter what he does, because his actions are the definition of morality if we begin with the assumption that Christ died for our sins. Thus, God's goodness is dependent on nothing, and he has no choice, thereby making it impossible for him to be moral. Again, all this is contingent on my previous post, since it is there that I establish that Christianity leads inevitibly to this conception of God.</p>
<p>Although I believe his existence to be logically impossible, if this God were to exist, I would still hate him, since I reject any morality defined simply by God's actions. I believe I have already addressed your point comparing morality to reason. See the first part of this post for a treatment of your objection.</p>
<p>"Although I believe his existence to be logically impossible, if this God were to exist, I would still hate him."</p>
<p>ouch....</p>
<p>Newton was a Christian and also not the first person I would go to for matters of spirituality/philosophy.</p>
<p>GDWilner, you are a sick person. Hating your own creator wont help you much.</p>
<p>...here come the personal attacks.</p>
<p><em>Brace for impact</em></p>
<p>NEWTON did his homework and came to realize that science has it's limits, so he knew God was the hidden source behind the rest of it.</p>
<p>Lord Kelvin (British scientist) also claims "If you study science deep enough and long enough it will force you to believe in God".</p>
<hr>
<p><a href="http://www.secretbeyondmatter.com%5B/url%5D">www.secretbeyondmatter.com</a></p>
<p>Well if we want to pull out quotes from scientists, this is one of my favorite:</p>
<p>"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." </p>
<p>-Einstein</p>
<p>Certainly scientists acknowledge that there is something beyond the realm of science that cannot be explained and it's often called "God." But why should this God be the Judeo-Christian God?</p>
<p>'Nuff said. You won't be hearing from me anymore about evolution.</p>
<p>Hallelujah! Praise the lord! Al-hamdalellah! WooHoo!!</p>
<p>It shouldn't be the Christian God. God is just something beyond our comprehension that created this universe. Man created all sorts of stories and depicted God in pictures, different stories and pictures in different regions of the world, that's all religion is. Something tangible to hold on to for people that need that.</p>
<p>Guitar, Einstein's IQ was lower than Newton's, so he's dumber. haha. well, not really, but remember, overall, Newton kicked Einstein's ass, so I'd rather believe Newton than Albert.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>Yes, almost 60% of mechanical physics is because of Newton's discoveries.</p>