Alydar

Funny, I can't join there - they refused my e-mail address. I belong to several atheist based fora and discussion groups so perhaps I'm on some kind of stop list. I have heard of many describing their experience there and I predict, since you are of reasonable mind and speak it as well, you'll be banned in no time.

windsofchange

Yes, as a Catholic-in-recovery, I have noticed that my beloved church NEVER just comes out and says "We were wrong" when they change something. Instead they will ALWAYS try and claim, "Hey, this is really what we MEANT to say all along - we just didn't say it clearly and got misunderstood!" Because to admit they were wrong would invalidate the whole house of cards on which the authoritative system rests - the claim is that they're right about EVERYTHING, so if you show even one little thing that they are wrong about, the whole thing falls apart.

Scientists, however, usually say, "Hey, we were wrong! Let's see if we can figure out why, and come up with something better!"

(P.S. I did just go over to that message board and wow! Even though I'm on my way out of the Catholic Church, I'm tempted to re-up just so I can go in and tell them off! ;-)

Alydar

And that, sir, is an immediate ban!

_Naturalist_

The religious creation myths contradict the scientific theories.

Also, if there is a purpose with this universe, and if humankind is in some way the crown of creation, how is that compatible with the theory of evolution? How can natural selection be compatible with a created world where we're not the result of billions of years of natural selection, but instead the result of creation without evolution? And even if they accept evolution, it would be their own brand of it, a kind of evolution that is goal oriented and which would lead specifically to humankind.

Science and religion both make statements about the universe. If that's not an overlap, what is?

BigJim

Simple: God created the Big Bang, and set everything up allow evolution to eventually give birth to humans. The Adam/Eve thing is a bullshit metaphor because the people at that time didn't have the scientific understanding for evolution, but now we have progressed far enough that we do. It's all a part of His master plan.

windsofchange

Well, I'm a ma'am, but I take your point.

Roq

The best and really only argument for the existence of god is: The Argument From Design. Although David Hume demolished the argument, his refutation was somewhat philosophical/technical and is not generally understood.

The theory of evolution by natural selection, however, unambiguosly explains how life might evolve naturally and conclusively finishes off the argument from design. Note also how concerned theists (see Kent Hovind vs Michael Shermer for instance) are with scientific theories of abiogenenis: Rocking with the punch of evolution, they are worried that with Stanley Miller's experiments on the one side and evolution on the other someone will deal a knock out blow by explaining the very origin of life and God will finally be winkled out from his last gap.

R

David B

Your link doesn't work, because I'm told I can't access it.

Looks like your thread has been pulled.

These people are frightened of criticism.

Here, some assholes get banned, but reasonable people, religious or otherwise, don't.

I've read a lot of deconversion stories, and been caught up in a non christian cult myself.

Religion - belief in the supernatural - is really bad news.

There is a tendency - no more, because lots of religious/superstitious people manage to retain their humanity - for religion to make people turn into assholes, IMV

David B

Guest21595

I dont believe that is has been pulled -- you merely have to register to view the thread. I still keep getting replies.

-jonathan

INTP

The real problem between science and religion is ultimately political and economic. All the issues that arise from the conflict between science and religion come down to where government funding is allocated. The archaic morality of the Bible clashes with the newfound promise of unprecedented cures in regards to stem cell research. The required curriculum of schools is being wrestled between religious IDers and the scientific community. It's a power struggle between conservatives and progressives (as that is what science is). The scientific community has no quarrel with religion and has no agenda to discredit religion(s) as such. If the information put forth by science happens to conflict with religion, that's not science's fault; it's tested and published, subject to scrutiny and revision. Religion, on the other hand, is inflexible by its very nature. So, this perceived "conflict" between religion and science is a one way attack of religion on science. The more science make a valid argument, the more religion has to make excuses for not fitting with the reality the science describes.

Most people are not comfortable with a reality that is constantly changing with new discovery and refinement of old theory. Science is inherently fluid and never rests. It can be a hard doctrine to believe in for those who NEED stability in their lives. This is religion's draw. It offers concrete answers for questions that may have no real answer, ever. A feeling of security, no matter how many holes its philosophy has, is paramount in almost everybody's lives. Because of this, those adherent to religions and all the moralities tied to them will never let science go without a fight.

"No way as way"
-Bruce Lee