Creationism vs. Evolution

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Gregory why cant the two coexist? what always gets me is... yeah, maybe the earth was formed by a huge explosion... but something had to be there to cause that explosion? another explosion? and so on...

You're close to my take on this subject. I view evolution as a mean to describe how it happened, kind of like describing a watch using the development of gears and diodes and... whatever the watch uses to keep trach of time. Who actually put it together is another question. Some believe that some creative force: God, aliens, the Great Spirit, Bullwinkle and Rocky... stared the process, either intentionally or by accident. The system generally runs itself as set up by the "creator." Some believe "God" (or whatever) moves every part, makes everything work. I get off the theological wagon on that one.

The conflict between Evolution and Creationism is artificial, unless you believe in the poof theory that God just wills everything, all the time, to be... or not, and anything else is heresy. Sounds like an Inquistor's take on the Tooth Fairy to me. Poof! The money appears below your pillow and accept it OR ELSE.

Of course, like all theories, evolution could be wrong, but it does rely on observation first, not theologically correctness forced upon science. There are those who treat evolution as if it were concrete and not subject to revision from observation. It seems the human mind tends to gravitate far too easily towards "accept this or else..." Sometimes challenging the scientific community is as hard as challenging the theocratic ones.

[Deus]

My turning to God is the furthest thing from ignorance. My point I was trying to get across was not that "Well, no other explanation, so God, hell why not". It was that I believe that the energy and matter of the universe could not have been formed from nothingness. My speculation on whether or not this being has any matter in our everyday lives is to be argued with myself. I'm a firm believer in a creation/evolution. The matter of the universe was created to evolve over time. My main argument was that Einstein's Gulf was a foolish statement to use in this debate, and was surprised the article in question was written by a man with a PhD in Linguistics (haha). As for science not always being exact, having no room for chance and outliers, turn to Calculus.

[SlySpy]

Quote by: Deus My turning to God is the furthest thing from ignorance. My point I was trying to get across was not that "Well, no other explanation, so God, hell why not". It was that I believe that the energy and matter of the universe could not have been formed from nothingness.

Why do people continue to persist with this inadequate solution to the problem of origin? Are they being selectively ignorant when they choose to ignore that whatever constitutes God also had to have come from somewhere?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Ken Carman The conflict between Evolution and Creationism is artificial, unless you believe in the proof theory that God just wills everything, all the time, to be... or not, and anything else is heresy. Sounds like an Inquistor's take on the Tooth Fairy to me. Poof! The money appears below your pillow and accept it OR ELSE.

If the conflict is artificial then one or both of the explanations of evolution or creationism must be artificial. But that is not the case at all. What we have here are two competing explanations of how humans came to be. Evolution is only part of the complete scientific explanation and still has some significant holes and yet is doing a great job of predicting what we should be finding and so far no surprises. Creationism is an explanation with no gaps, at least as far as creationists are concerned but has no power to predict anything. In fact at first blush it predicts that we should not be finding any animal or human precursors in the fossil record. But creationists wave this off by explaining that god put those fossils there to "test our faith". Anyway everything can be accounted for by god and of course they completely ignore the question of who made god. Ignoring this one vital part of the god explanation is something I have never understood. People see human beings and are not willing to accept that maybe we have occurred naturally so they concoct a superior human being that is even more incredible in order to make our amazing selves but then somehow do not require a creator for such a super being that is even more fantastic than we are. I suppose they think that god occurred naturally? From what I can see the actual purpose of god for most of these god advocates is not the creation of the cosmos since that is obviously a fait accomplis, god or no god. No they want a god because they think that such a creature is on their side. It is the ultimate big brother that is watching out for you, the invisible friend that can whip anybodies ass. The creationist thing for religious people is a red herring to keep them from wondering who created god and then questioning the whole supernatural god bullshit in the first place.

Of course, like all theories, evolution could be wrong, but it does rely on observation first, not theologically correctness forced upon science. There are those who treat evolution as if it were concrete and not subject to revision from observation. It seems the human mind tends to gravitate far too easily towards "accept this or else..." Sometimes challenging the scientific community is as hard as challenging the theocratic ones.

Maybe, but I don't see the Vatican handing out prizes to people who discover new religion such as different gospels or accounts of Jesus that were not supernatural, whereas scientists get prizes for discovering new science. No, what I see is that people who discover new religion get excommunicated or worse. The religious do not like the idea of the old religion being wrong one bit, but discovering new science is how a scientist is made in the scientific community. Supernatural religion and science are two very different mindsets. The key here is follower verses discoverer. One must conform whereas the other must question, explore and challenge. Can't understand why anyone would want to be a follower of any kind of supernatural religion unless deep down they were just very frightened.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Deus My turning to God is the furthest thing from ignorance. My point I was trying to get across was not that "Well, no other explanation, so God, hell why not".

Okay.

It was that I believe that the energy and matter of the universe could not have been formed from nothingness.

And this differs how? You have no idea how the universe could have come to be. Few people on earth (perhaps Hawking and a few others) has a remote speculation of how it could have come to be...... so you make shit up rather than just saying "I DON'T KNOW." That is dishonest.

My speculation on whether or not this being has any matter in our everyday lives is to be argued with myself. I'm a firm believer in a creation/evolution. The matter of the universe was created to evolve over time. My main argument was that Einstein's Gulf was a foolish statement to use in this debate, and was surprised the article in question was written by a man with a PhD in Linguistics (haha). As for science not always being exact, having no room for chance and outliers, turn to Calculus.

???? Science != Calculus.

Starboy

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Starboy If the conflict is artificial then one or both of the explanations of evolution or creationism must be artificial. But that is not the case at all. What we have here are two competing explanations of how humans came to be. Evolution is only part of the complete scientific explanation and still has some significant holes and yet is doing a great job of predicting what we should be finding and so far no surprises. Creationism is an explanation with no gaps, at least as far as creationists are concerned but has no power to predict anything. In fact at first blush it predicts that we should not be finding any animal or human precursors in the fossil record. But creationists wave this off by explaining that god put those fossils there to "test our faith". Anyway everything can be accounted for by god and of course they completely ignore the question of who made god. Ignoring this one vital part of the god explanation is something I have never understood. People see human beings and are not willing to accept that maybe we have occurred naturally so they concoct a superior human being that is even more incredible in order to make our amazing selves but then somehow do not require a creator for such a super being that is even more fantastic than we are. I suppose they think that god occurred naturally? From what I can see the actual purpose of god for most of these god advocates is not the creation of the cosmos since that is obviously a fait accomplis, god or no god. No they want a god because they think that such a creature is on their side. It is the ultimate big brother that is watching out for you, the invisible friend that can whip anybodies ass. The creationist thing for religious people is a red herring to keep them from wondering who created god and then questioning the whole supernatural god bullshit in the first place. Maybe, but I don't see the Vatican handing out prizes to people who discover new religion such as different gospels or accounts of Jesus that were not supernatural, whereas scientists get prizes for discovering new science. No, what I see is that people who discover new religion get excommunicated or worse. The religious do not like the idea of the old religion being wrong one bit, but discovering new science is how a scientist is made in the scientific community. Supernatural religion and science are two very different mindsets. The key here is follower verses discoverer. One must conform whereas the other must question, explore and challenge. Can't understand why anyone would want to be a follower of any kind of supernatural religion unless deep down they were just very frightened. Starboy

If the conflict is artificial then one or both of the explanations of evolution or creationism must be artificial. But that is not the case at all. What we have here are two competing explanations of how humans came to be

Sorry, don't accept your "either/or" equation. Neither might be artificial. Both might be. Some of each? It's the conflict that's artificial. They're not competing at all, unless you insist they do. God could have created all and used evolution, or something like it, to do it. If I use a wrench to tighten a lug nut does that negate the fact it was I that tightened it? Many devices, once created, adjust themselves. Why would an intelligent Creator be less inventive and resourceful than we are?

I am no fan of Creationism as it is tossed down before the public. It is so obviously a shell game with the real intent on forcing the believer into hating those the proponents want you to hate and accept a ridged line of thinking and stop thinking. I won't defend it a bit. Could there be a Creator(s)? That is another independent question. I think most Creationists hurt themselves by putting the two in absolute opposition with no compromise possible.

I agree with most of what you posted, otherwise, I just don't think you automatically have a closed mind if you believe there may (or may not) be a Creator(s). The closed mind part comes from dogma, and dog-ma IS a bitch.


The key here is follower versus discoverer. One must conform whereas the other must question, explore and challenge. Can't understand why anyone would want to be a follower of any kind of supernatural religion unless deep down they were just very frightened.

Whoever said I was a follower? One doesn't need to be a follower to accept that something may be possible, or even likely. Even followers can be "half-assed" and take the direction those who lead took, or take, to guide oneself: but not in a Jimmy Jones like fashion. I am a follower of Einstein, for example, to a certain extent. Where he took us, scientifically, I follow... to a certain extent. But he could have been wrong, as can any leader, genius or great thinker. Some of what Jesus may have taught I attempt to follow. But life is my path, not Einstein's or Christ's. I get to pick and choose, reassess my choices, then choose again... using my own creative abilities at the same time to conceptualize right, wrong, truth... etc.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Ken Carman If the conflict is artificial then one or both of the explanations of evolution or creationism must be artificial. But that is not the case at all. What we have here are two competing explanations of how humans came to be Sorry, don't accept your "either/or" equation. Neither might be artificial. Both might be. Some of each? It's the conflict that's artificial. Their not competing at all, unless you insist they do. God could have created all and used evolution, or something like it, to do it. If I use a wrench to tighten a lug nut does that negate the fact it was I that tightened it? Many devices, once created, adjust themselves. Why would an intelligent Creator be less inventive and resourceful than we are?

If the "conflict is artificial" then that means that people are advocating creationism over evolution for what reasons exactly that do not have to do with thinking that god made everything according to the bible? That is what artificial implies in this case since there are people that are actively trying to have creationism replace evolution and in some areas they are making progress.

As for the need for a creator in the first place perhaps I misunderstand your argument. You look at everything and for some reason it had to be made because it amazes you in some way and yet the creator postulated would have to be at least as amazing as us and doesn't need to be created? Or are you saying that god is an inanimate thoughtless lump of something that could have easily existed naturally so that it could somehow make creation? The flaw here is in the reasoning and the willful ignorance of the basic argument. A willful ignorance that requires a creator because it is not honest enough to accept its own ignorance.

I am no fan of Creationism as it is tossed down before the public. It is so obviously a shell game with the real intent on forcing the believer into hating those the proponents want you to hate and accept a ridged line of thinking and stop thinking. I won't defend it a bit. Could there be a Creator(s)? That is another independant question. I think most Creationists hurt themselves by putting the two in absolute opposition with no compromise possible.

I agree there is more to it than creationism. The main problem is that creationists are advocates of supernaturalism in a world that is explained and run by naturalism. It is a gigantic disconnect. In order for religious leaders to keep this charade up they must require a strict adherence to all religious teachings. No religious knowledge can be open to question, faith must reign supreme. Such people who send their kids to public schools will not tolerate teaching anything that conflict with their religion. Creationism is the tip of the ice berg. People should be a great deal more alarmed about what is going on then they appear to be. There is a wave of evangelicals that are sweeping up the remnants of the materialistic me generation of the 90's and turning it into the spiritual me generation of the 00's.

I agree with most of what you posted, otherwise, I just don't think you automatically have a closed mind if you believe there may (or may not) be a Creator(s). The closed mind part comes from dogma, and dog-ma IS a bitch.

It's not an issue of a closed mind if you require god to be a first cause, what I see is a mind that will not admit it is ignorant and just leave it as an open question.

Starboy

[Deus]

Wow Starboy, you're quick to scream ignorance, so I'll go ahead and jump on the hypocrisy bandwagon. Science and math go hand in hand, try proving some of the theories of the universe with arithmetic. Calculus is an innaccurate mathematical process, yet is used commonly to express values we couldn't normally use basic arithmetic to find. So you can easily understand my point in saying that, unless you want to be an ignorant dumbass and tear this one to pieces as well.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Deus Wow Starboy, you're quick to scream ignorance, so I'll go ahead and jump on the hypocrisy bandwagon. Science and math go hand in hand, try proving some of the theories of the universe with arithmetic. Calculus is an innaccurate mathematical process, yet is used commonly to express values we couldn't normally use basic arithmetic to find. So you can easily understand my point in saying that, unless you want to be an ignorant dumbass and tear this one to pieces as well.

I have a bachelor degree in Physics and most of the course work for BS degrees in Electrical Engineering and Mathematics. I have all the work completed for a PhD in Experimental Solid State Superconducting Physics. For my dissertation I designed and built from scratch a heavy ion implanter. I have studied under Dirac and sat in on colloquia given by Wienburg, Feynman and Dirac. Pulease do not tell me about math. The faculty used to come to me when they didn't know how to solve a differential equation or integration. I could solve the most difficult QM problems in my sleep. I understand very well the role of mathematics in science. Science != mathematics. There is a very simple reason for this. One I am sure that a person of your vast education would know.

Starboy

[SlySpy]

Quote by: Deus Wow Starboy, you're quick to scream ignorance, so I'll go ahead and jump on the hypocrisy bandwagon. Science and math go hand in hand, try proving some of the theories of the universe with arithmetic. Calculus is an innaccurate mathematical process, yet is used commonly to express values we couldn't normally use basic arithmetic to find. So you can easily understand my point in saying that, unless you want to be an ignorant dumbass and tear this one to pieces as well.

Arithmetic is a purely cerebral undertaking. Given the axioms of the number system a blind and deaf man could hypothetically discover calculus, trigonometry, and even trans-finite arithemetic given that he has enough time and is smart enough. As well, if an answer(s) is proposed within a mathematical framework it must be that exact answer and even the slightest deviation cannot be tolerated (unless, of course, you are informed otherwise by your professor )
Science, on the other hand, is a process based on experiment and observation. Because all data is empirical and given that our senses can be flawed and that no two experiments are perfectly identical science becomes a process that is approximate and this leads to uncertainty. To reduce uncertainty within a scientific paradigm we must test and re-test, because even the smallest anomaly can discredit theories. This is also why, unlike in arithmetic, no one can justifiably be 100 percent sure of any scientifically proposed theory or law, because there's always a chance that there's something we've missed or will show up in the future. You can, however, be pretty damn close to absolutely sure given the copious amount of observation and data that supports a theory and which doesn't yield conflicting results.

[Starboy]

Close enough. Mathematics is a closed man made system. We know the rules because we made them up. We may not know all the consequences of those rules but they are well defined methods for figuring them out.

Reality on the other hand is not a man made system. We have no idea if it has a closed set of rules or even what those rules are. The whole point of science is to try to figure out what the rules are based on the consequences of those rules that we have before us. And since it is not man made there may be no way to know if we 1) are even close to figuring out any of the rules and 2) if we are even close to figuring out all of the rules.

Starboy

[SlySpy]

Just what I implied except you got straight to the point.

[Deus]

And so you have Starboy...amazing that someone with such a VAST educational background can be so predictable.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Deus And so you have Starboy...amazing that someone with such a VAST educational background can be so predictable.

Gee, how about that. When you know something like say 1=1 it is always 1=1. Maybe in your world you make it up as it pleases you.

Starboy

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Starboy If the "conflict is artificial" then that means that people are advocating creationism over evolution for what reasons exactly that do not have to do with thinking that god made everything according to the bible? That is what artificial implies in this case since there are people that are actively trying to have creationism replace evolution and in some areas they are making progress. As for the need for a creator in the first place perhaps I misunderstand your argument. You look at everything and for some reason it had to be made because it amazes you in some way and yet the creator postulated would have to be at least as amazing as us and doesn't need to be created? Or are you saying that god is an inanimate thoughtless lump of something that could have easily existed naturally so that it could somehow make creation? The flaw here is in the reasoning and the willful ignorance of the basic argument. A willful ignorance that requires a creator because it is not honest enough to accept its own ignorance. I agree there is more to it than creationism. The main problem is that creationists are advocates of supernaturalism in a world that is explained and run by naturalism. It is a gigantic disconnect. In order for religious leaders to keep this charade up they must require a strict adherence to all religious teachings. No religious knowledge can be open to question, faith must reign supreme. Such people who send their kids to public schools will not tolerate teaching anything that conflict with their religion. Creationism is the tip of the ice berg. People should be a great deal more alarmed about what is going on then they appear to be. There is a wave of evangelicals that are sweeping up the remnants of the materialistic me generation of the 90's and turning it into the spiritual me generation of the 00's. It's not an issue of a closed mind if you require god to be a first cause, what I see is a mind that will not admit it is ignorant and just leave it as an open question. Starboy

If the "conflict is artificial" then that means that people are advocating creationism over evolution for what reasons exactly that do not have to do with thinking that god made everything according to the bible? That is what artificial implies in this case

That's interesting. I claimed it was artificial, you redefine what I said, then try to force me to swallow your interpetation? Sorry. If you want to eat it, go ahead. But I used the word to mean this...

Certainly most of them believe that God created everything. But artificial, in the sense I was using it in, is in their belief that there has to be a conflict. They are free to believe whatever they wish. If they want to put up a metallic Christmas tree as the one true tradition, that is their choice. But as soon as they decide to come into my house, my church, our schools, our laws and our Constitution and force others to accept their metallic trees: force their faith by calling it science; that is artificial. They set up a conflict that only existed because they wanted to force others to agree with them. Science is deduction, not having a conclusion and then looking for excuses to back up such conclusions. I feel just as strongly about those unwilling to test conclusions and turning scientific matters into religion. The way you redefined it I would have used "phoney" or "lying" or even "con-job." As "out there" as I believe some are, I do think most of them are sincere... sick perhaps, very sick... but sincere.

Essentially I think they are creating a fuss about something there doesn't need to be a fuss about. Want Creationism? Go to your churches. Use private schools. Don't dress faith up as science and force it on others.

You look at everything and for some reason it had to be made because it amazes you in some way and yet the creator postulated would have to be at least as amazing as us and doesn't need to be created? Or are you saying that god is an inanimate thoughtless lump of something that could have easily existed naturally so that it could somehow make creation? The flaw here is in the reasoning and the willful ignorance of the basic argument. A willful ignorance that requires a creator because it is not honest enough to accept its own ignorance.

It would be amazing either way, Creator(s) or no Creator(s).

I have no idea who or what God(s) may be. I find it fun to postulate and imagine. I listen to what others say, have said/written, and use that to fuel, but not control, the speculation.

Yes, I am ignorant. and so are you. I mean that as no "slam" or "dis." We are all ignorant. There is so much out there to be know, not known yet and things we may never understand. It's a grand adventure attempting to discover, learn and understand.

I agree there is more to it than creationism. The main problem is that creationists are advocates of supernaturalism in a world that is explained and run by naturalism. It is a gigantic disconnect

It's possible that evolution is an attempt to help "supernaturalism" and "naturalism" connect, make sense. Any decent God would applaud such efforts. The God of the Fundies would crush us, shut us up and shut us down. Sounds more like "Satan" to me.
It's also possible that "supernaturalism" is all dangerous/silly bunk. I think it only is if we take it too seriously. In it's best form it simply helps us know there is always something beyond what we understand and uses creativity to explore the possibilities. In it's worse form it's used to suppress science and gain power over others. Going back to your first comments, I do believe that some of the leaders who started the Creationist movement are probably phoney. It's just another way to attain power over others. But most believers, by definition, do believe... blindly. That's why such believers keep going over cliffs so easily, like Jones or Tammy and Jimmy or... they swallow their own crap and then pray to the Lord, "Oh, Lord, why did I just get sick, screw that prostitute, poison hundreds of people..." But being by definition deaf and blinded by their own limited thoughts, they wouldn't hear the answer if it could be given.

It's not an issue of a closed mind if you require god to be a first cause, what I see is a mind that will not admit it is ignorant and just leave it as an open question

It is an open question, to me. God doesn't have to be a first cause, by any means. Hell, maybe we're all just imagining we're actually here, I don't really know, and neither does anyone else. (Of course in that type of circular reasoning we would always come back to who is "we're" that's "imagining.") Science is the best tool we have for such exploration, but that doesn't mean I have to deny other possibilities.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Starboy Gee, how about that. When you know something like say 1=1 it is always 1=1. Maybe in your world you make it up as it pleases you. Starboy

Interesting philosophical question... I hope. 1+1=2? Are two objects ever exactly the same or so seperate from the universe that surrounds them that we can actually even claim "1" or any more than "1+1= 1and another 1?" Of course, for the closed system we have created to further our intellectual and technological journey, we must compromise, and I'm all for that. Such compromise can do marvelous... and hideous... things.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Ken Carman Interesting philosophical question... I hope. 1+1=2? Are two objects ever exactly the same or so seperate from the universe that surrounds them that we can actually even claim "1" or any more than "1+1= 1and another 1?" Of course, for the closed system we have created to further our intellectual and technological journey, we must compromise, and I'm all for that. Such compromise can do marvelous... and hideous... things.

I didn't say 1+1=2, I said 1=1. Simple identity. There are all sorts of systems with interesting rules, group theory, differential geometry, topology come to mind. As far as I know all of them require identity. And there are many analogs where 1+1 != 2 but 3 or 4 or 10. They are called families. And cases where 1 / 2 = 0. They are called living things. In all cases of mathematical systems they start out with a set of man made rules that define the system and then everything proceeds from there. Open any book on mathematics and the rules are usually presented in the first few pages. I have no problems with creating new sets of rules; it is just that we appear completely unable to do that with actual reality.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Ken Carman If the "conflict is artificial" then that means that people are advocating creationism over evolution for what reasons exactly that do not have to do with thinking that god made everything according to the bible? That is what artificial implies in this case That's interesting. I claimed it was artificial, you redefine what I said, then try to force me to swallow your interpetation? Sorry. If you want to eat it, go ahead. But I used the word to mean this... Certainly most of them believe that God created everything. But artificial, in the sense I was using it in, is in their belief that there has to be a conflict. They are free to believe whatever they wish. If they want to put up a metallic Christmas tree as the one true tradition, that is their choice. But as soon as they decide to come into my house, my church, our schools, our laws and our Constitution and force others to accept their metallic trees: force their faith by calling it science; that is artificial. They set up a conflict that only existed because they wanted to force others to agree with them. Science is deduction, not having a conclusion and then looking for excuses to back up such conclusions. I feel just as strongly about those unwilling to test conclusions and turning scientific matters into religion. The way you redefined it I would have used "phoney" or "lying" or even "con-job." As "out there" as I believe some are, I do think most of them are sincere... sick perhaps, very sick... but sincere. Essentially I think they are creating a fuss about something there doesn't need to be a fuss about. Want Creationism? Go to your churches. Use private schools. Don't dress faith up as science and force it on others.

Hey, I didn’t bring up the term artificial. You did. Those making the so-called artificial conflict do not see it as artificial at all. In fact I would contend that they have their act together better than those that would contend that there is no conflict.

What most people seem to ignore is that supernatural is not a phenomenon, it is an explanation. Supernatural could never be a phenomenon. As soon it became one it would become natural. You see this is how our modern society works these days. We live in the natural world. We explain what happens around us in the natural world with natural explanations. People do not really think that the 9/11 hijackers succeeded because god was on their side. People do not really think that all those hurricanes hit Florida because god was angry at the gays. The fact is that most of the non-fundamentalist religious are more naturalists then they are supernaturalists. On Sunday they pretend to believe in all the supernatural mumbo jumbo and then for the rest of the week they live in the natural world. It is dishonest. They hold beliefs that are in conflict and yet do not acknowledge it. In fact they try to gloss over it with seemingly sophisticated arguments that they would not buy if they were applied to any other religion but their own. The layers of deceit just pile on from there.

The fundies on the other hand are trying to make the unreal real. They say so in so many words. There is nothing artificial about it to them. They are creating actual conflict on purpose because they want the world to return to explaining reality using supernatural constructs. The not-so-supernatural Christians look on and pretty much do nothing. Many see no problems with it. After all, these people say things that the churches of these not-so-supernatural Christians are taught. Where’s the beef? What people do not realize is that once society openly condones and encourages fantasy as acceptable reality then the so-called fundamentalists have an open invitation to get as crazy as they want. What are the not-so-supernatural Christians gonna say, “god didn’t say that? On whose authority? It would be one thing if god was real but because it is beyond the real and essentially acts as if it didn’t exist at all then how is the rational, moderate, not-so-supernatural Christian supposed to point out to the so-called fundamentalist Christian that they are all wrong? We are screwed every bit as much because of the not-so-supernatural Christians as we are by the fundamentalist Christians. Fundamentalism would not be a threat to society unless Christianity was not present in the first place. You could say that Christianity is the fuel that makes fundamentalism possible.

Starboy

[Deus]

Aside from all this joyous bashing, I think you missed the point of my first post. Do you agree or disagree that Einstein's Gulf is a horrible subject to use to defend creationism?

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Starboy Hey, I didn’t bring up the term artificial. You did. Those making the so-called artificial conflict do not see it as artificial at all. In fact I would contend that they have their act together better than those that would contend that there is no conflict. What most people seem to ignore is that supernatural is not a phenomenon, it is an explanation. Supernatural could never be a phenomenon. As soon it became one it would become natural. You see this is how our modern society works these days. We live in the natural world. We explain what happens around us in the natural world with natural explanations. People do not really think that the 9/11 hijackers succeeded because god was on their side. People do not really think that all those hurricanes hit Florida because god was angry at the gays. The fact is that most of the non-fundamentalist religious are more naturalists then they are supernaturalists. On Sunday they pretend to believe in all the supernatural mumbo jumbo and then for the rest of the week they live in the natural world. It is dishonest. They hold beliefs that are in conflict and yet do not acknowledge it. In fact they try to gloss over it with seemingly sophisticated arguments that they would not buy if they were applied to any other religion but their own. The layers of deceit just pile on from there. The fundies on the other hand are trying to make the unreal real. They say so in so many words. There is nothing artificial about it to them. They are creating actual conflict on purpose because they want the world to return to explaining reality using supernatural constructs. The not-so-supernatural Christians look on and pretty much do nothing. Many see no problems with it. After all, these people say things that the churches of these not-so-supernatural Christians are taught. Where’s the beef? What people do not realize is that once society openly condones and encourages fantasy as acceptable reality then the so-called fundamentalists have an open invitation to get as crazy as they want. What are the not-so-supernatural Christians gonna say, “god didn’t say that? On whose authority? It would be one thing if god was real but because it is beyond the real and essentially acts as if it didn’t exist at all then how is the rational, moderate, not-so-supernatural Christian supposed to point out to the so-called fundamentalist Christian that they are all wrong? We are screwed every bit as much because of the not-so-supernatural Christians as we are by the fundamentalist Christians. Fundamentalism would not be a threat to society unless Christianity was not present in the first place. You could say that Christianity is the fuel that makes fundamentalism possible. Starboy

YES, I did use it, and you redefined it to mean what you wanted it to. That's what I was objecting to. I will not be held responsible for your definitions.

Of course most of them believe the conflict isn't artificial, excepting some of the leaders who are using the cause for other purposes. Once again, whether they believe it artificial or not isn't the point. The point is there is no need for conflict. The "need" for conflict is artificial, not the beliefs or even, perhaps, some of the arguments.

Of course those who believe there is a need for conflict are far better organized than those who don't, unless you mean something else in regard to "having their act together." Those who put up strawmen always have their act together better because A/... they intiated it. B/...like a fish offered poisoned bait humans too often bite. Another example of this is going on elsewhere at Volconvo about "wishing someone Merry Christmas." The current strawman argument being used to theocratically politicize an issue is that Liberals are raising hell about saying "Merry Christmas." It's mostly bogus. Most people say "Merry Christmas" back to someone, or something they feel more at ease with, and move on. There is no conflict. It's a strawman put up to make infuriate the gullible into helping those who wish to force society into a more theocratic mode. Of course in a community as big as humanity you can find a few examples of almost anything.

Supernatural could never be a phenomenon

For some it is postulating such, but mostly your right, especially all the Gods, Goddeses that have been worshipped and feared over the short span of humanity's existence.

It is dishonest

Yes, but those who believe there may be something else, something beyond what we understand as natural (not what is natural) aren't being dishonest. Our view of what is and isn't should always be subject to revision and speculation, whether you're a scientist or simply speculating.

BTW, I'm generally not a church goer. There are only a few churches out there that reject dogma; accept those who speculate and accept those who are more atheistic or agnostic in nature. Unfortunately those type of churches are often just as compromised by the petty power politics and infighting that the others are. Apparently Christianity does little to prevent this nonsense, but attempts at a more non-dogmatic mostly approach don't work either. This is the power struggle I mention so much that transcends all mumbo jumbo and attempts to accept others. It doesn't say much for humanity, I fear.

Could we also say that atheism was the fuel for states that claim to commit their atriocities as well and oppress others who don't agree or don't accept state doctrine, especially in regard to lack of faith? No. I think neither atheistic nature of what some called "Communism" (it wasn't), some call "Christianity" (who knows if any of it actually is, but probably not) or any of the other belief systems are to blame, but they are certainly not blameless. They are the conduits maniacs and morons use to abuse others. Edit out the conduits and these same m&m's will use some other conduit; anything that says "this is the only truth and all others are wrong." Over and over again it is twisted and perverted into either forcing others to agree or eliminating them. Once again... it doesn't say much for humanity, I fear.

If neither Christianity or Fundamentalism existed some Aztec would still pull a heart out of some poor soul and the Gulags would still have existed. Mostly what we believe means less than how we use, or abuse, our beliefs and those who won't conform to our perceptions.