Biblical literalism

[pianistimo]

there are many christians that are anti-violence.  pacifists.  they are usually the ones to get killed.  first abducted and then tortured and finally killed.  they don't chose to shoot to kill - and try to avoid conflict (even in the army). 

operations that the military is doing has to be separated in your mind, ramseytheii, from religion.  you are working under an assumption that the entirety of america supports the same religion or God.  if you went and asked people who are in the army - they would come from all walks and faiths. 

we're not back in the nineteenth century and still working with empires and commonwealths.  the gospel is being preached in a much quieter way - and with much more persecution.  many christians have died for preaching the true gospel (which does not advocate violence).  when a person is willing to die for another - and tells them at the point of dying that they hope that through their death the other person will truly live and come to see Christ - the death was purposeful. 

the centurion who was responsible for overseeing the crucifixion of Christ noted how he died (and also the wonders which happened afterwards - earthquake and sun/moon being darkened) and said 'this truly WAS the Son of God.'  similarly - when stephen was stoned - people witnessed him seeing Jesus Christ receiving him to himself.  the rewards for christians is for persevering under trials and troubles. 

[pianistimo]

about your question, ramseytheii, why did Christ ascend to 'heaven' if there is no heaven.  good question.  as i read it - he says 'i will come again and receive you unto myself.  and where i am, you may be also....'  so - when he returns to rule the earth - he will be king until the 1000 years are completed and then a 'new heavens and new earth' will be revealed.  spiritual.  we will have spiritual eyes to see this even at the first ressurrection if we are changed to spirit.  but, there are many who have not lived out their lives fully.  what will happen to them?  it says here they will come to life in the millenium and learn God's ways.

the 1000 years are spoken of in isaiah, the psalms, micah, and several other prophets.  'arise, shine, for your light is come and the glory of the Lord has risen.... (speaking of the ressurrected saints with Jesus Christ) - and the nations will come to your light, and the kings to the brighteness of your RISING.  lift up your eyes round about, and see; they all gather together, they come to you - your sons will come from afar, and your daughters will be carried in the arms....then you will see and be radiant, and your heart will thrill and rejoice....'

i think that people - if they believed that the ressurrection was real and true would not mourn as much (still mourn - but not terribly) because they would know that the next moment the person is alive they will see them again.  including children who die young.

ps rev. 20:6 says 'blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first ressurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of CHrist and will reign with Him for a thousand years.'  then, it goes on to say what will happen after that.

[thalbergmad]

he will be king until the 1000 years are completed

When did the 1000 years start.

Thal

[prometheus]

And what after 1000 years?

[thalbergmad]

The day of judgement?

And i don't hold out much hope for either of us

Thal

[thalberg]

This makes me very curious.  What shocking things do you speak of? 

You gave a very intelligent reply to my comments directed at Soliloquy.....

But then you mention taking a razor to certain passages of the Bible (which many people would like to do).  But I asked before and I'll ask again--which passages?

I would like to know which passages you believe Christians would disown, or which passages are so shocking no one would subscribe to them, or which passages you think give the religion its endemic problems.  And, my goodness, which passages did people use to 'justify monstrosities?'

[sassafras]

Jerry Falwell is either in the cold, cold ground or the aether of St Thomas Aquinas.

[timothy42b]

When did the 1000 years start.

Thal

Okay, I'll lecture for a moment.  This is actually quite important, though I don't remember all the details that well.  It's important because it has caused war and may still.

Within Christianity there are three kinds of millenialists:  amilleniallists, premilleniallists, and post milleniallists.  All believe the Bible supports their position and only their position, of course. 

Amilleniallists believe the 1000 years is not precisely 1000, it's metaphorical for "a very long time."  It just refers to the Kingdom of God.  Basically Christianity is an outgrowth and natural progression of Judaism.  When Jesus came he brought the kingdom, and we are all now part of the universal church and His kingdom.   My denomination as well as Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and most of the other mainstream ones fall into this category.  Sure, there'll be a second coming someday, but that's a long way off.  Part of the reasoning here is that it is painfully obvious we've exceeded 1000 years since Jesus's time. 

Pre- and post- milleniallists reject this natural progression.  They believe Christianity is in some sense an aberration - not an outgrowth of Judaism despite the history of the Old Testament.  They believe in a precise 1000 year Kingdom on Earth, where Jesus will return and rule over the Jews, finally punishing them in the end.  The pre milleniallists believe that just before the start of the 1000 years there will be a "Rapture" and all living Christians will be whisked off to Heaven without dying.  The post milleniallists believe Christians will suffer through the 1000 years of tribulation and end times, and then be Raptured at the end.  Most of the independent fundamentalist churches as well as Baptists fall into either pre or post milleniallist categories.  pianistimmo can probably say more, she falls here as well. 

Without the existence of Israel presumably the second coming and the Rapture can't happen.  There are some political implications possible here. 

[jlh]

I forget who had this insightful quote, and I must paraphrase because I don't have the exact wording: "Good people will do good things; bad people will do bad things; but if you want good people to do bad things, you need religion."

Richard Dawkins wrote that famous quote in his 2006 book, "The God Delusion".  If it was coined earlier, I'm not aware of it.  The quote goes like this:

"without religion, good people would do good things and bad people would do bad things. But to get good people to do bad things you need religion"

[timothy42b]

Richard Dawkins wrote that famous quote in his 2006 book, "The God Delusion".  If it was coined earlier, I'm not aware of it.  The quote goes like this:

"without religion, good people would do good things and bad people would do bad things. But to get good people to do bad things you need religion"

I like the corollary:

Without religion, sane people would be rational and insane people would have delusions.  But to get sane people to have delusions you need religion. 

I forget who said it.  Well, actually I know, I just don't want to say. 

[jlh]

I like the corollary:

Without religion, sane people would be rational and insane people would have delusions.  But to get sane people to have delusions you need religion. 

I forget who said it.  Well, actually I know, I just don't want to say. 

Was it you, perchance?

[prometheus]

That quote is be Steven Weinberg, American physics laureate.


And I agree very much with him.

[timothy42b]

Was it you, perchance?

Well...............................................yes. 

What I had in mind by delusions was people denying their senses.  Like looking at a two mile deep coal seam, the remains of vegetation, or a five mile high mountain formed of limestone, the remains of microscopic sea creatures, and saying yup, flood musta done it. 

[thalbergmad]

What I had in mind by delusions was people denying their senses. 

Well some literalists don't have any senses to start with, so nothing to deny.

Thal

[sassafras]

Richard Dawkins is the deluded one; compare Collins' The Language of God. I like the idea of bio-theism espoused by Collins, but I am too lazy to lecture on the subject -- been there, done that.

[timothy42b]

Richard Dawkins is the deluded one;

That would imply two things:  that you've read Dawkins, and that you find fault with his logic (not just disagree with his conclusions.)

I read Dawkins's God Delusion last weekend, and though I don't like his conclusions either I have to admit finding fault with his logic is very difficult. 

Perhaps you can share the evidence he is deluded? 

[ramseytheii]

Richard Dawkins is the deluded one; compare Collins' The Language of God. I like the idea of bio-theism espoused by Collins, but I am too lazy to lecture on the subject -- been there, done that.

Francis Collins is in many ways refreshing, because he doesn't believe science and religion to be incompatible.  The Christian fundamentalists rip up their vocal cords screaming hysterically about how evolution is the "religion" of secularists, and that the world is 6,000 years old, so we must all agree it is nice to see a professed fundamentalist reject those things.

Walter Ramsey

[prometheus]

The definition of deluded is quite clear; having a false belief that is resistant to reason.


Dawkins is an atheist. So that mean he lacks belief in gods. So in what does he have a false belief despite reason? Fairies? Ghosts? Green little aliens?

[jlh]

The definition of deluded is quite clear; having a false belief that is resistant to reason.


Dawkins is an atheist. So that mean he lacks belief in gods. So in what does he have a false belief despite reason? Fairies? Ghosts? Green little aliens?

Not necessaryily reason, but delusion is an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary. https://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=delusion

As for what he believes, Dawkins was an athiest, so the following would apply to him:

An atheist believes ‘I have faith and belief myself. I believe that the universe is comprehensible within the bounds of natural law and that the human brain can discover those natural laws and comprehend the universe. I believe that nothing beyond those natural laws is needed.’

‘I have no evidence for this. It is simply what I have faith in and what I believe.’

--Isaac Asimov, Counting the Eons, Grafton Books (Collins), London, p.10.


Notice the words "faith", "believe", and such.  Atheism is a religion -- though disguised as science.  Whenever you have a belief about a God, or gods, or no god, then you have a religion. 

[prometheus]

Not necessaryily reason, but delusion is an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary. https://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=delusion

As for what he believes, Dawkins was an athiest, so the following would apply to him:

Dawkins is still alive.

An atheist believes ‘I have faith and belief myself.

A faith and belief in onesself? What does that mean? That they belief they exist?

Also, I don't see how this naturally follows from not having a belief in gods.

I believe that the universe is comprehensible within the bounds of natural law and that the human brain can discover those natural laws and comprehend the universe. I believe that nothing beyond those natural laws is needed.’

I don't know Dawkins actually beliefs this. I am not so sure about this. I also doubt Dawkins is. Plus, this has nothing to do with atheism or with gods.

Notice the words "faith", "believe", and such.  Atheism is a religion -- though disguised as science.

Atheism is neither a religion or science. You just don't know what atheism is. Or you just want to misrepresent atheism so that you can attack that straw man because you can't argue against the real thing.

[jlh]

A federal court of appeals has ruled that atheism is a religion:

https://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874


Here's the KAUFMAN v MCCAUGHTRY case described above if you'd like to review it:

https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/041914p.pdf


If there is an error in the KAUFMAN ruling, the fault may be found in Supreme Court and other decisions going back decades.

   "The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a 'way of life,' even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns," noted the Seventh Circuit ruling. "A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being, (or beings, for polytheistic faiths) nor must be it be a mainstream faith." Relevant cases include: WISCONSIN v YODER (1972); TORCASO v WATKINS (1961); MALNAK v YOGI (1979) and LINDELL v MCCALLUM (2003).

[jlh]

"A person's religion is the sum total of his beliefs about God and the supernatural. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the three largest "monotheistic" religions, with belief one God, Creator Of The Universe.

Some religions are "polytheistic," with belief in many gods, each with different functions.

Atheism is the religion whose belief about God is that there is no God.

Some Atheists, for their own political reasons, assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion. This allows them to spread their Atheistic beliefs freely in societies which insist on "separation of church and state."

But this is like saying that "black," (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color. The car I drive is a big, old Chevrolet, whose color is black. In common practice throughout the world, "black" is understood to be a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, "Atheism" is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary.

If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.

If Atheism is a religion, then it must be subject to the same legal restrictions imposed by governments on all other religions. In particular, in the United States, the teaching of Atheism must be prohibited wherever the teaching of Christianity is prohibited.

But where is Atheism being taught? Atheism is being taught, by default, in all places where other religions cannot be taught, particularly in the public schools.

When the State mandates that the Theory of Evolution be taught as fact, that is establishing the religion of Atheism, because the Theory of Evolution asserts that all life forms are created not by God, but by pre-existing natural processes. This is pure Atheism! If we are not created by God, then there might as well be no God, for all the difference He makes.

The mere fact that many scientists are Atheists does not entitle them to establish Atheism as our State Religion!

When the State prohibits free discussion of God in the classroom, that is establishing the religion of Atheism. Wherever the State permits Atheistic ideas to be spread but prohibits Theistic ideas, that is establishing the religion of Atheism.

Therefore I urge you to understand clearly in your mind that Atheism is a religion, just as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are religions. And any restrictions placed on Christianity, Judaism, or Islam must also be placed on Atheism. Atheism must not be allowed to slip through its little loophole any longer, by pretending it is not a religion."

--Rev. Bill McGinnis

[jlh]

Side-by-side comparison of the religion of atheistic humanism compared with theism (christianity):

https://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-humanism-is-religion.htm

[jlh]

Atheism is neither a religion or science. You just don't know what atheism is. Or you just want to misrepresent atheism so that you can attack that straw man because you can't argue against the real thing.

You claim my argument is a straw man, but as you can see, atheism has only one definition (though different variations of humanism employ atheism, so there can be many variants).  I know what atheism is, and my argument is not a straw man if what I have said is fact.  I said the word 'science' because most atheists use science to support their belief that no God exists.  Atheistic scientists go into research and study with the presupposition that no God exists, just as Christian scientists presuppose that God exists.

[ramseytheii]

Before I respond to any of these posts, I am just curious whether you believe them yourself, or you are playing D--l's advocate?

Walter Ramsey

[jlh]

Responses 71-72 are beliefs by their respective authors.  I have a basic belief that atheism is a religion -- though not an organized religion such as christianity.  It is religious because it presupposes a belief (based on evidence or not) that no God exists.  That's all I'm saying.  The court ruling does not make atheism a religion, but it's findings do help corroborate that view.

[ramseytheii]

Responses 71-72 are beliefs by their respective authors.  I have a basic belief that atheism is a religion -- though not an organized religion such as christianity.  It is religious because it presupposes a belief (based on evidence or not) that no God exists.  That's all I'm saying.  The court ruling does not make atheism a religion, but it's findings do help corroborate that view.

I'm not sure what the purpose of that point of view is, except maybe it is successful at irritating self-proclaimed atheists.  Or perhaps it gives the religious a sense of comfort, that nobody can escape being called "religious."  Similar to when you go shopping with a friend, make an irrational and impulsive purchase, and are comforted when they do as well.   

I am glad the other two posts don't reflect your beliefs, because it would really take either a moron to believe those things, or somebody who is just not exposed to everyday life.  Especially on that website, which had a lot of material which just didn't make any sense.

For example, they never qualify who is a "humanist" except as a person who must carry some sort of card and holds something called the "Humanist Manifesto" as a holy book; I've never seen such a card, or even heard of such a book; I suppose I am not a humanist, so I am not qualified to criticize, but then again, who is a humanist?  Show us your ID cards.

I think it is funny how they say that "public educators" are the replacement for priests; that suggests that religious people don't need public educators, only their priests.

When religious (Christian fundamentalist or Evangelical) say that God is not allowed to be taught, they are confused: they should be saying, God is not allowed to be enforced.  That would be more true.  I can think back to every level of schooling I had, and at each level, you could take a class informing you about the Bible, about Christianity, and so forth.  We were never taught, "God is your creator," but "The Bible says that God is your creator."  Religious fundamentalists, who by the way when they say God only refer to Christian God, want the former to be taught: "God is your creator."  Well, the priest can do that.

Why do Humanists (whoever they be) forbid the Biblical view of sexuality?  Because the Biblical view of sexuality is so barbaric as to be inhumane and criminal.  Most churches do not even teach the Biblical view of sexuality; they would be sent to jail and marked as sex offenders for certain.  The churches present a watered down view of homophobia, abstinence, and copulation only for reproduction, leaving out the majority of what the Bible actually says about sexuality.  At least have the honesty to take your book seriously, like the female-circumcising Muslims do.

The website also claims that you can't teach any of those religious concepts after hours.  But that just isn't true.  Plenty of high schools have Bible, Koran, and Torah groups and clubs, attended by people who actually believe in those books, not by people with a secular, academic interest.  It is patently false.  It plays on people's fears at the most vulgar level, so much that they cannot even see straight.  It's a lie, nothing more and nothing less.

Plenty of churches have remarked that there is no contradiction between religion and evolution.  The problem persists when people use evolution to mean, "creation of life," rather than "origin of species."  This is really just optional ignorance for political purposes, and doesn't need to be taken seriously.

Then the website presents these articles of "Humanism:"
   

ARTICLE 2: "Humanism believes that man is part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process.

ARTICLE 3: "Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

ARTICLE 8: "Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now.


ARTICLE 2: "Promises of immortal salvation or fear of damnation are both illusory and harmful...Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the ‘ghost in the machine’ and ‘separable soul.’ Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces...There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body.

ARTICLE 5: "We believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility


I fail to see what is evil about that, but I suppose many Christians find social responsibility abhorrent, so why hold their views against them.   what is so terrifying about the unity of mind and body? 

Like I am said, I am glad these views do not reflect yours.

Walter Ramsey

PS I modified this a few times for clarity and to correct a couple word mistakes

[jlh]

When religious (Christian fundamentalist or Evangelical) say that God is not allowed to be taught, they are confused: they should be saying, God is not allowed to be enforced.  That would be more true.  I can think back to every level of schooling I had, and at each level, you could take a class informing you about the Bible, about Christianity, and so forth.  We were never taught, "God is your creator," but "The Bible says that God is your creator."  Religious fundamentalists, who by the way when they say God only refer to Christian God, want the former to be taught: "God is your creator."  Well, the priest can do that.

Do you live in the US?  Even if you did, the days of your schooling must have been some time ago.  Nowadays, public (state funded) schools are not allowed to teach christian (or any other religion) tenents because of the Establishment Clause. 

So then, Creationism is not taught as a result, but Evolution (central to Secular Humanist thought) is taught, even though it takes as much or more faith to believe that as Creationism does.  Evolution is not a FACT, but an assumption based on non-empirical science.  That doesn't mean evolution is a myth or a lie, it is simply something that CANNOT be proven by empirical scientific method, just as creationism cannot be proven by empirical scientific method.  They are both beliefs, yet the one that doesn't mention GOD is the one that is allowed to be taught in US public schools.

[ramseytheii]

Do you live in the US?  Even if you did, the days of your schooling must have been some time ago.  Nowadays, public (state funded) schools are not allowed to teach christian (or any other religion) tenents because of the Establishment Clause. 

Yes, I live in the US, and in one of the most liberal areas (90% voting for Democratic party in all presidential elections in living memory).  There is a confusion here about what it means to "teach" something.  When Christians say schools cannot "teach" Christianity, what they are really saying is that schools cannot "enforce" Christianity.  You can learn about Christianity, in addition to a whole host of other religions that most Christians don't realize exist, in all kinds of religious history or world religion classes.  In addition, you can join Bible clubs for after-school meetings, Koran clubs, or Torah clubs.  I didn't go to high school yesterday, but I remember going to the Torah club a few times to see what it was all about.

Please do not perpetuate the confusion between "teaching" something and "enforcing" something.

So then, Creationism is not taught as a result, but Evolution (central to Secular Humanist thought) is taught, even though it takes as much or more faith to believe that as Creationism does.  Evolution is not a FACT, but an assumption based on non-empirical science.  That doesn't mean evolution is a myth or a lie, it is simply something that CANNOT be proven by empirical scientific method, just as creationism cannot be proven by empirical scientific method.  They are both beliefs, yet the one that doesn't mention GOD is the one that is allowed to be taught in US public schools.

Prometheus, to the main deck!  Calling Prometheus!

Walter Ramsey

[prometheus]

Ok, let's assume atheism is a religion.

Now say I want to have no religion at all, not even atheism. How do I do that? And how would you call it?


Atheism means the lack of a belief in god, not a belief that god does not exist. That is what is sometimes called 'hard atheism'. But if you look at the etymology of the word then it's quite clear how to understand this word.


Now, you already accepted that technically atheism is not a religion. So, what is your point? That people take some liberty in using a word in every day situations?


Also, look at the definition of religion. You could very well make up a new religion that is athestic in the sense that it claims there are no gods. But then you need to set up a church, get some rituals, etc.

I am a spiritual person. But my atheism has nothing to do with my spirituality. For some this may indeed be different.




You also talk about an atheistic idea. What is that? As far as I know there can be only one atheistic idea: "having no faith in gods".

Atheism is not a world view. Atheists only have one thing in common with each other. Some atheists are into science, some are not. The reasoning behind their atheism can be very very different.

Some people have just never heard of religion, like me up to the age of 12. Others were raised as Christians by their parents but lost their faith after they became more educated.

And since I now know what religion is I can deny it consciously, something I didn't do when I was younger even though I also lacked a beleif in gods back then, making me an atheist.


This also makes it impossible to teach atheism. Everyone is born without a faith in god so everyone is born an atheist. You can only try to remove someone's religion. So that could be called 'teaching atheism'.

Also, not teaching someone to be a theist could be called 'teaching atheism'.

There are no atheistic principles, no atheistic moralities, no atheistic world views, etc. None of them exist.

Now, a humanist is not the same thing as an atheist. Humanism is a life philosophy. Atheism isn't. There are ton's of philosophies or life teachings that lack gods. Buddhism, Confucianism, taoism, the list goes on.

When the State mandates that the Theory of Evolution be taught as fact, that is establishing the religion of Atheism, because the Theory of Evolution asserts that all life forms are created not by God, but by pre-existing natural processes. This is pure Atheism! If we are not created by God, then there might as well be no God, for all the difference He makes.

Not it seems this is a part of someone elses opinion. But let me just comment on this.

First of all, if one would know what the Darwinian theory of Evolution actually is one would know that it can only explain how new variations of life forms arise from earlier life forms. Evolution can only explain how we get here once there already is life.

Evolution does not explain the origin of life, it explains the origin of species or variation in life.

Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life. So it is clear that evolution does not claim that god did not create life. And even if it did, there can still exist a god, just not a god creating life on earth. So not even in that way evolution could be atheistic.

Evolution doesn't depend on the non-existence of gods. If there were gods evolution would explain variation in life just as well. It would still be totally valid.



The opinion voiced that once children aren't brainwashed with Christianity they are being brainwashed with atheism is just stupid. If you 'teach atheism' you are actually leaving them alone.

[ramseytheii]

Ok, let's assume atheism is a religion.

Now say I want to have no religion at all, not even atheism. How do I do that? And how would you call it?


Atheism means the lack of a belief in god, not a belief that god does not exist. That is what is sometimes called 'hard atheism'. But if you look at the etymology of the word then it's quite clear how to understand this word.


Now, you already accepted that technically atheism is not a religion. So, what is your point? That people take some liberty in using a word in every day situations?


Also, look at the definition of religion. You could very well make up a new religion that is athestic in the sense that it claims there are no gods. But then you need to set up a church, get some rituals, etc.

I am a spiritual person. But my atheism has nothing to do with my spirituality. For some this may indeed be different.




You also talk about an atheistic idea. What is that? As far as I know there can be only one atheistic idea: "having no faith in gods".

Atheism is not a world view. Atheists only have one thing in common with each other. Some atheists are into science, some are not. The reasoning behind their atheism can be very very different.

Some people have just never heard of religion, like me up to the age of 12. Others were raised as Christians by their parents but lost their faith after they became more educated.

And since I now know what religion is I can deny it consciously, something I didn't do when I was younger even though I also lacked a beleif in gods back then, making me an atheist.


This also makes it impossible to teach atheism. Everyone is born without a faith in god so everyone is born an atheist. You can only try to remove someone's religion. So that could be called 'teaching atheism'.

Also, not teaching someone to be a theist could be called 'teaching atheism'.

There are no atheistic principles, no atheistic moralities, no atheistic world views, etc. None of them exist.

Now, a humanist is not the same thing as an atheist. Humanism is a life philosophy. Atheism isn't. There are ton's of philosophies or life teachings that lack gods. Buddhism, Confucianism, taoism, the list goes on.


Not it seems this is a part of someone elses opinion. But let me just comment on this.

First of all, if one would know what the Darwinian theory of Evolution actually is one would know that it can only explain how new variations of life forms arise from earlier life forms. Evolution can only explain how we get here once there already is life.

Evolution does not explain the origin of life, it explains the origin of species or variation in life.

Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life. So it is clear that evolution does not claim that god did not create life. And even if it did, there can still exist a god, just not a god creating life on earth. So not even in that way evolution could be atheistic.

Evolution doesn't depend on the non-existence of gods. If there were gods evolution would explain variation in life just as well. It would still be totally valid.



The opinion voiced that once children aren't brainwashed with Christianity they are being brainwashed with atheism is just stupid. If you 'teach atheism' you are actually leaving them alone.

Brilliant!

Walter Ramsey

[pianistimo]

witchcraft is a religion.   harry potter was required reading for my son in fifth grade.  in fact, several books.  did i complain and whine?  no - he read the books.  but, we discussed it.  stop whining.

a 'rounded' education is one which gives all sides.  and, doesn't hide facts which are discovered daily which prove real human history and real human genome and dna facts (which counter some of the things that were previously darwinianized).

there is one thing that bothers me, a bit, though, and it would be 'how' the state would ever implement one religion over another.  this is why i believe that if religion is out - then witchcraft should be, too.  of course, the theory of evolution is basically non-belief in God - which is also a belief.

in terms of science - i think it very possible to say - 'this is one theory' - these are 'world religions - and share each belief.'  i think they sort of do that in pennsylvania.

perhaps the solution would be to truly teach world history - and move, geographically videotaping/interviewing the beliefs and the culture of each country.  it would be beneficial and interesting and not so biased.

[prometheus]

If the concept of a god is totally alien to you then do you have a belief regarding that concept?


Sure, I hold a belief that there are no gods. But my kind of belief isn't the same as the kind of belief of people that belief in the god of the bible.

Words have more than one definition. If you don't distinguish this while making an argument then that is the equivocation fallacy.

[ramseytheii]

witchcraft is a religion.   harry potter was required reading for my son in fifth grade.  in fact, several books.  did i complain and whine?  no - he read the books.  but, we discussed it.  stop whining.

a 'rounded' education is one which gives all sides.  and, doesn't hide facts which are discovered daily which prove real human history and real human genome and dna facts (which counter some of the things that were previously darwinianized).

there is one thing that bothers me, a bit, though, and it would be 'how' the state would ever implement one religion over another.  this is why i believe that if religion is out - then witchcraft should be, too.  of course, the theory of evolution is basically non-belief in God - which is also a belief.

Many churches can comfortably reconcile evolution with their religion.  I don't understand why you say it is the same as atheism? 

I seem to remember you made a similar point a long time ago about carbon dating, that carbon dating was the "new atheism" or something to that effect.

perhaps the solution would be to truly teach world history - and move, geographically videotaping/interviewing the beliefs and the culture of each country.  it would be beneficial and interesting and not so biased.

I think you have a point.  When we teach world history, we should not gloss over the complicit role religion played in many great evils, such as preaching from the pulpit in favor of slavery and engaging in slave trading; acquiescence to the Nazi forces; the fight against penicillin and modern day fights against cancer vaccines; the fight against environmentalism; the religious-inspired wars that today are taught without a single mention of the role of religion in the war.  These are points that should not be glossed over; after all, people need to hear "both sides."

There is a general reluctance on the Christian "fundamentalist" angle to hearing both sides.  That is why hell is so often glossed over in favor of heaven, or why the clear moral exposition of the Bible is often left behind as mere metaphor.

Walter Ramsey

[sassafras]

It is a shame Christian fundamentalists do not understand what a scientific theory or a theory in science is -- please pardon my grammar. It is more  a shame that Richard Dawkins and professed atheists do not look at the world with wonder and realize that a materialist vision and a spiritual vision are not mutually exclusive.
The ancient Greeks were bogged down in materialism as in a material universe, not consumerism, and we as a species in our efforts to seek are looking for the finite explanation, one we can understand.

AS I wrote earlier, I am not up to a lecture intellectually -- I have a Thd but do not go to church, a J.D. and think after years of law practice thar Rorty may be right and truth may be relative as opposed to absolute, and ABD PhD History of Science with specialization in histry of biological sciences.

Dawkins is as to the atheists and scientists as the school board in Pa and the Scopes trial is to the creationists.

The earth was created. Am I a creationist? NO. DO I believe in evolution? YES. Is a scientific theory merely a theory? NO

Is life too short and too precious to the individual to worry about all of this? Yes

Why are we here? I do not know but if in my search for "meaning" (and an overabundance of post doctoral course hours) I feel, believe or know that I cannot in my limited intellect fathom whether a knowable or unknowable God, GOD, god created the whole shebang,  I can can only conclude with seek and ye shall find....

[jlh]

Atheism means the lack of a belief in god, not a belief that god does not exist. That is what is sometimes called 'hard atheism'. But if you look at the etymology of the word then it's quite clear how to understand this word.

There are in fact 2 definitions of atheism, according to Princeton University's Dictionary:
https://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

The fact that you personally may only subscribe to one of these definitions does not invalidate the other.

Now, you already accepted that technically atheism is not a religion. So, what is your point? That people take some liberty in using a word in every day situations?

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, said of the court ruling I cited:  "It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited."  That is my point, that some atheists claim they are not religious, and then seek protection as a religion.  It's hypocritical.

Atheism is not a world view. Atheists only have one thing in common with each other. Some atheists are into science, some are not. The reasoning behind their atheism can be very very different.

A world view is any ideology, philosophy, theology, movement, or religion that provides an overarching approach to the way the world operates.  Christianity is a world view, Humanism (whether it be Secular, Cosmic, Marxist or whatever) is also a world view.  Because atheism provides a philosophy and a theology (or would you prefer, an anti-theology) about how the world works, it is a worldview.

Atheism is a liberating world view
By Dr. Gilbert D. Shapiro
https://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/125152
"Let's first affirm that atheism is not a religion. It is quite simply a fundamental world view that asserts that to date there has been no evidence for the existence (reality) of gods."

Some people have just never heard of religion, like me up to the age of 12. Others were raised as Christians by their parents but lost their faith after they became more educated.

And still others find their faith has strengthened once they've been educated.  You seem to imply that all Christians are ignorant because they don't believe like you that there is no God, and that once you are "educated", you will see the light and turn from your Christian ways.

There are no atheistic principles, no atheistic moralities, no atheistic world views, etc. None of them exist.

You're right, there isn't really a set of moral principles for Atheists, unless you wanted to make some kind of "Ethics and Values for Kids" with delightful little illustrations about the main difference between the ideals of Stuart-Mille and Kant. Let me ask you this though:  Do you believe in an absolute truth?  Does anything exist or not exist absolutely?

[jlh]

It is a shame Christian fundamentalists do not understand what a scientific theory or a theory in science is -- please pardon my grammar.

I don't know if this was directed at me, but I will assume so since I brought up the evolution thing.  I know what scientific theory is, and I know that the theory of evolution is not something that can be proven empirically, as the theory of gravity can be.  I only stated that it is not FACT, because it is not.  Whether or not evolution occured is beside the point.  It is not what you think or believe, but what you can prove that makes something empirical science.

[sassafras]

it was not directed at you, just a statement of how I see the morass

[prometheus]

There are in fact 2 definitions of atheism, according to Princeton University's Dictionary:
https://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism

Of course, there's tons of definition. Implicit atheism, explicit, strong, weak. But the fundamental definition is clearly understood if you look at the etymology .

That is my point, that some atheists claim they are not religious, and then seek protection as a religion.  It's hypocritical.

What do you mean by that?

Also, if the state is to protect freedom of religion it should also protect those without a religion. Is that what you mean? I am not an US citizen.

A world view is any ideology, philosophy, theology, movement, or religion that provides an overarching approach to the way the world operates.

Atheism says nothing about how the world operates. You mean a scientific or humanist world view. Not an atheist one.

Because atheism provides a philosophy and a theology  about how the world works, it is a worldview.

What theology and philosophy follow from the lack of a belief in god?

Atheism is a liberating world view
By Dr. Gilbert D. Shapiro

I don't agree with Dr. Shapiro then. Never heard of him either. Atheism is only liberating if it is a move from a theistic belief with a very rigid set of dogmas.

So it isn't atheism that is liberating. It's just the rigidness of some religions. It is very well possible to 'convert' to atheism without being liberated by anything.

And still others find their faith has strengthened once they've been educated.  You seem to imply that all Christians are ignorant because they don't believe like you that there is no God, and that once you are "educated", you will see the light and turn from your Christian ways.

I am talking about atheists. If they were religious before then at some point they lost their faith. Often this is because of education. Often this is because of the theory of evolution. And Christians understand this all too well as that is the reason they attack the education system.

Do you believe in an absolute truth?  Does anything exist or not exist absolutely?

There is only one reality so there is only one truth. So yes I do belief in one truth. But I don't see what the word 'absolute' means here.

Finding out the truth isn't such an easy thing, to put it mildly. So I don't believe humans have access to 'absolute truth'.

Also, this world has only one history. But often it seems to be impossible to find out which history is true and which is false. It seems that it is quite possible that the truth here is just lost in the past. So if you mean that with absolute truth, no I don't belief that truth is being archived or something.

It will always be impossible to be absolutely sure something is true.

[prometheus]

It is more  a shame that Richard Dawkins and professed atheists do not look at the world with wonder and realize that a materialist vision and a spiritual vision are not mutually exclusive.

I have often hear Dawkins talk about this spiritualism.

Some of the criticism on his latest book was that he wasn't actually an atheist but a believer. The reason for this is that Dawkins described the kind spiritualism you mean here and his critics equaled that to faith in god.


I also have this.

Last night I slept outside. I could see the stars and the blur behind it, the milky way. Unlike primitive humans I actually know what I am looking at and this greatly deepens the experience. I know all those stars have world of their own and I know how large and vast this galaxy is.

I know the physics, etc etc. It's really amazing.

[jlh]

Of course, there's tons of definition. Implicit atheism, explicit, strong, weak. But the fundamental definition is clearly understood if you look at the etymology.

In fact you're right, but to lump all atheists into one group of people who reject any god is not right, either.  Your statement here proves my point.  For example, an implicit atheist simply has thought about the existance of God or gods, while an explicit atheist has a belief that such a being does not exist.

What do you mean by that?

Also, if the state is to protect freedom of religion it should also protect those without a religion. Is that what you mean? I am not an US citizen.

Did you read about that court case?  The inmate wanted to host weekly study sessions for atheism, and he got protection for his right to do so under the Establishment Clause, which is designed to protect religions.  If atheism is not a religion, then there needs to be another way to promote free discussion of philosophies like atheism aside from calling it a religion.

Atheism says nothing about how the world operates. You mean a scientific or humanist world view. Not an atheist one.

What theology and philosophy follow from the lack of a belief in god?

In fact, atheism says a lot of how the world operates.  If you believe there is no God, then the decisions you make and the way you view the world are completely different.  Humanism has many different varieties, but one thing that connects them is atheism, by definition.

Ok, it's a stretch to claim atheism has a theology, but if you have a belief about God, or the absence of God, doesn't it follow that you have a theology of disbelief? lol  Maybe Atheology? haha

As for it being a philosophy, consider what atheist Joseph Lewis has to say about it:

"The Philosophy of Atheism"
by Joseph Lewis
(Address Delivered February 20, 1960,
Over Radio Station WIME, Miami, Florida)
https://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewis00.htm

There is only one reality so there is only one truth. So yes I do belief in one truth. But I don't see what the word 'absolute' means here.

Finding out the truth isn't such an easy thing, to put it mildly. So I don't believe humans have access to 'absolute truth'.

Also, this world has only one history. But often it seems to be impossible to find out which history is true and which is false. It seems that it is quite possible that the truth here is just lost in the past. So if you mean that with absolute truth, no I don't belief that truth is being archived or something.

It will always be impossible to be absolutely sure something is true.

If it's always impossible to be absolutely sure something is true, then how can you be absolutely sure that it's true that no God exists?

[timothy42b]

Sorry to have been redundant.  Perhaps I didn't read carefully enough.

jlh, you seem to think that defining evolution as a religion weakens the evidence for it.

Yet you think defining your beliefs as religion is evidence for them, and we should not look too closely at them.  In fact we should teach them in school, enforce them, and perhaps burn nonbelievers at the stake. 

My children were taught the basic doctrines of the major world religions in their world history class.  They weren't taught any of them as TRUTH that YOU must believe, they were taught them as doctrines that various groups DO believe. 

this had an interesting consequence.  One of my children came home and said, "too bad we don't still know how long a cubit is."  When I recovered from my shock that they were talking about Noah's Ark in a US public school, I told her we do, it's the length of an alto trombone slide.  Of course I got that long suffering "Daddy is a moron" look, then I told her use 19 inches.  She grabbed a calculator and a minute later said, "so the flood was 46 feet deep."  Yup.  "and Mt Everest is 5 miles high."  Yup.  "Yeah, right!" 

[jlh]

Sorry to have been redundant.  Perhaps I didn't read carefully enough.

jlh, you seem to think that defining evolution as a religion weakens the evidence for it.

Yet you think defining your beliefs as religion is evidence for them, and we should not look too closely at them.  In fact we should teach them in school, enforce them, and perhaps burn nonbelievers at the stake. 

My children were taught the basic doctrines of the major world religions in their world history class.  They weren't taught any of them as TRUTH that YOU must believe, they were taught them as doctrines that various groups DO believe. 

this had an interesting consequence.  One of my children came home and said, "too bad we don't still know how long a cubit is."  When I recovered from my shock that they were talking about Noah's Ark in a US public school, I told her we do, it's the length of an alto trombone slide.  Of course I got that long suffering "Daddy is a moron" look, then I told her use 19 inches.  She grabbed a calculator and a minute later said, "so the flood was 46 feet deep."  Yup.  "and Mt Everest is 5 miles high."  Yup.  "Yeah, right!" 

I never said evolution is a religion.  I said it takes faith to believe evolution, considering the lack of empirical evidence to support it.  The "evidence" is speculation based on the belief of evolutionary biologists who came up with it.  They first came up with the theory of evolution (Darwin did not have any 'missing links' or other such 'evidence' to support his theory), and then when they found 'evidence', they immediately fit it into their theory without a second thought.

Because there is scientific evidence for creationist science, it is my opinion that it should be taught alongside evolutionary science.  Instead, it is confined to "religion" classes, and the only option being taught as science is evolution. 

Yes, your daughter is right, it wouldn't make sense to say that the flood waters rose 15 cubits (Genesis 7:20) from sea level and so covered the tallest mountains as we know them today.  That would be absurd.  There have been many attempts of varying successes to explain this verse, and some commentators, inserting words not in the Bible, say that “at least” 15 cubits of water were above all the earth’s mountains. Others say that the text means the Ark, whose height was 30 cubits, must have been only half submerged and did not run into mountain peaks. 

The explanation becomes clear if we recognize that: (a) today’s mountains were formed by a completely different mechanism than those on the preflood earth, and (b) the earth was founded on and spread out above liquid water (Psalms 24:2, 104:3, and 136:6).

Here’s why the flood waters covered the preflood mountains by 15 cubits:

Tell you what... go directly to this website and do a search on the page for the text "Genesis 7:20" and you will see the explanation.  It will save space on here.

https://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ311.html

Josh

[prometheus]

For example, an implicit atheist simply has thought about the existance of God or gods, while an explicit atheist has a belief that such a being does not exist.

An implicit atheist could have never heard of the concept of god. This person does not belief in god without having ever considered it.

Such a position is never a belief. Ever. None of the belief-definitions.

Did you read about that court case?

Don't really should how it is relevant. The education system allows to teach religion. Religion is also a life philosophy. So if Christianity can be taught through tax money then why not Pastafarianism or taoism? Or the Olympic gods? Or naturalist secular position. Not because they are religions but they are alternatives to religion.

The inmate wanted to host weekly study sessions for atheism, and he got protection for his right to do so under the Establishment Clause, which is designed to protect religions.

I don't understand what a study session on atheism is. If you ask me it is impossible.

In fact, atheism says a lot of how the world operates.

It only says how the world does not operate.

If you believe there is no God, then the decisions you make and the way you view the world are completely different.

Not sure. I am ingrained with Christian ideals about sex, for example, while I an not a Christian at all.

An atheist can take any position on this issue. An atheist could be more conservative on sex than Christianity or be totally liberal. Atheist says nothing about sex. It only says that there is no god that decides for us.

Humanism has many different varieties, but one thing that connects them is atheism, by definition.

But the only things atheists share is their atheism.

Ok, it's a stretch to claim atheism has a theology, but if you have a belief about God, or the absence of God, doesn't it follow that you have a theology of disbelief? lol  Maybe Atheology? haha

Atheists can engage in theology. They can have theological opinions and positions. But these are not determined by their atheism.

Some atheists thing that Jesus existed. Some may even thing he has supernatural abilities, as long as no god is involved. Some claim they are sure that Jesus never existed. Some just have doubts and in the view of the lack of evidence they are skeptical.

Sure, atheists have theology. But they don't have atheistic theology.


As for it being a philosophy, consider what atheist Joseph Lewis has to say about it:

"The Philosophy of Atheism"
by Joseph Lewis
(Address Delivered February 20, 1960,
Over Radio Station WIME, Miami, Florida)
https://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewis00.htm

Again, I don't agree with this person. I just scanned this article. He has a whole list of things that are not part of atheist philosophy.

Atheism is not a quest for the truth. There are tons of atheists without interest in finding out the truth. There are tons of atheists that believe in astrology. There are atheists in the flat earth society. Some atheists believe in grey big eyed aliens abducting people at night, etc.

Ok, maybe those people are on a quest for the truth. But there are also atheists not interested in science, not interested in anti-astrology or anti-religion or anti-conspiracy theories.

If it's always impossible to be absolutely sure something is true, then how can you be absolutely sure that it's true that no God exists?

Of course. Just as I can never be absolutely sure that Thor does not exist. Or fairies. Or whatever. You can never be absolutely sure. I might find new evidence tomorrow.

If I am absolutely sure then I don't take a scientific position.

[prometheus]

I said it takes faith to believe evolution,

If you mean this in the same sense as: "It takes faith to believe an apple will fall to the ground."

But that is play with words. If you use the word 'faith' here, which I wouldn't, then that is a totally different word from faith in gods.


Faith in god is not based on evidence. 'Faith' in the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution is.

... considering the lack of empirical evidence to support it.

The empirical evidence is very strong.

The only problem is that the pieces of the history of evolution aren't very obvious fitted together.

Evolution occurs too slow for us to observe in full during out lives. And evolution is too fast for it to stand out in the fossil record.

There are gaps in the fossil record because fossils are very rare. So we only get snapshots of a process that occurs pretty fast. But we see exactly what one would expect.
There are no missing links.


Today we can look at the genes and we can see how evolution occurred genetically. For example, the great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23. Now we already know that the DNA is very similar. But if we evolved from a common ancestor then we know that one of the chromosomes of our ancestor fused together.

It can't have been deleted because then we wouldn't be able to survive. So two of the 24 chromosomes must have fused to form 23 pairs.

You can find the exact same chromosomes in chimps, but there they are still separate.
One can locate the exact spot where the chimp chromosome fused to form human chomosome number 2. The fusion occurred at base pair 114,455,823 to 114,455,838.

Hillier et al, Nature 2004

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

There's tons of more examples. The 20+ different kinds of human species is also relevant. There are tons of examples that shows that evolution happens.

For example, if evolution were false, no one would need a new flue shot every year.

The "evidence" is speculation based on the belief of evolutionary biologists who came up with it.  They first came up with the theory of evolution (Darwin did not have any 'missing links' or other such 'evidence' to support his theory), and then when they found 'evidence', they immediately fit it into their theory without a second thought.

You are lying. Darwin went to the Galapagos where he figured out how species evolved. That they evolved was already clear to the ancient Greeks. But how did it work was unknown. Darwin figured it out.

Because there is scientific evidence for creationist science,

Oxymoron, and there is no creationist science. There's creationist pseudo-science at best. But only things like ID deserve that much credit. Most is just myth or totally absurd.

...it is my opinion that it should be taught alongside evolutionary science.

Why? Why want you to have bad science taught in school? Shouldn't science be pretty solid before we teach it our children?

Should astrology also be taught? What about  Lamarckian Evolution? And all those other dead scientific theories? Maybe the big bang is too theistic, even though it ha all the evidence in it's favour. Let's teach a solid state universe as well.

Maybe intelligent falling as an alternative to the theory of gravity.

Also, if we are to teach creation myth, which one? There are thousands? Let's give them all equal time, that's fair. Isn't it?

Let's teach the controversy.

[sassafras]

Darwin did not figure out how species evolved only that they did evolve. It is only in the past century, and the latter part of it that biological sciences, especially genetics, has figured out the "how."

Your passion is getting carried away...I have the sae problem.

[prometheus]

No no. Darwin proposed a mechanism. Up to that moment we had Lamarckian evolution and such.


There was no genetics back then, but Darwin predicted them. Without genetics Darwinian evolution would be wrong. But we established genetics and found DNA later on. Much later actually.

[jlh]

No no. Darwin proposed a mechanism. Up to that moment we had Lamarckian evolution and such.


There was no genetics back then, but Darwin predicted them. Without genetics Darwinian evolution would be wrong. But we established genetics and found DNA later on. Much later actually.

In other words, you're saying Darwin had a hunch that he could not prove, that he could not observe, and and could not duplicate and yet it turned out to be the backbone of modern evolution theory?  Empirical science finds the evidence first, then makes a theory.

[jlh]

Some sciences are HISTORICAL, not empirical, and to hear you say that they are empirical only makes you look ignorant: 

John H. Horner said, "...paleontology is a historical science, a science based on circumstantial evidence, after the fact. We can never reach hard and fast conclusions in our study of ancient plants and animals... These days it’s easy to go through school for a good many years, sometimes even through college, without ever hearing that some sciences are historical or by nature inconclusive." Dinosaur Lives, 1997, p.19

You said there are no missing links; well, there were when Darwin proposed his theory.  He wrote:

"...innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ...why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory". Origin of the Species.

Even more embarrassing for evolutionary theory is this statement by David M. Raup, U. Chicago; Ch. F. Mus. of N. H.:

 "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50, p.35

In fact, Darwin's prediction has failed, according to Niles Eldridge, Amer. Mus. N. H.:

"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search.... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46

Valentine (U. CA) & Erwin (MI St.) said this about evolution at the species level:

"We conclude that...neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans." Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.96, 1987.

E.J.H. Cornor, Cambridge, "Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the Theory of Evolution from Biology, Biogeography, and Paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." CONTEMPORARY BOTANICAL THOUGHT, p.61

I haven't even scratched the surface yet.  To believe blindly in evolution is to ignore the evidence, despite what you have been saying.  This is why it takes faith to believe something like evolution in a hard, cold fashion like we are taught at an early age.

The problem is that when you take God, or a Supernatural Being, out of the realm of scientific possibility, then all you are left with is a natural possibility, therefore evolution MUST be correct because there COULD NOT have been a God to create it.  That is the mindset of evolutionists.  They start with the assumption that God does not exist, therefore their assumption about the origin of species MUST be correct, even in the face of a lack of evidence --- because it's absured to think a God could create something. 

However, some of the greatest scientists that have paved the way for modern science were Christians, such as Copernicus, Bacon, Newton, Galilei, Descartes and a host of others.

Even Einstein was quoted as saying, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[pianistimo]

a couple of scientists on 'real science' show on tv went to siberia to examine a meteor crater from long ago - and found that the rock when broken apart contained very high amounts of helium (the type found in everywhere in space) which was unexpected.   not sure why it was unexpected - but it was in any case. 

now, i would predict the same with water.  where did all this water come from and when did it first exist?  can scientists explain how it all got there?  it's never discussed in full in science textbooks that take an evolutionist stance.  just like helium being in all parts of the known universe in equal quantities (at the same time) - water exists wherever it is and has been there since creation. 

in any case - arguing never helps people believe or not believe what they intend to continue to believe - probably.  but, at least we present the side that it didn't just suddenly all start growing like amoeba - because water doesn't grow.  it has a cycle - but the same amount of water turns into another form and then returns to it's previous form. 

the fact we can measure things so accurately nowdays must be revealing lots and lots of 'secrets.'  elements - etc. - that existed together from the beginning.  proving that one element did not exist before another - unless there were some that have to be combined to make certain other elements.  but, the basic elements would be there.

i believe God takes simple materials and then puts them together.  if it was evolution -we would continuously have more and more elements being created.  as it is now - there are a set number.