46% of Americans believe in creationism
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
That is quite a hefty percentage to be honest. However, if this particular woman is a Christian, then surely she would exercise some sort of flexibility in respecting the other persons beliefs. Surely love thy neighbour springs to mind, and the idea that she didn't want to even listen to a medium give his opinion, speak volumes about her own narrow-mindedness. Even if I know very little about paganism, at least the Pagan believer had the decency to actually do something that is probably alien to him and say grace.
I actually wonder about that poll. Was the question 'do you believe in creationism?' or was it just 'are you a christian?' and thereby assuming them to believe the world was made in a few days or whatever.
It's hard to comprehend nearly half of the population believing the Earth to be a few thousand years old
It's hard to comprehend nearly half of the population believing the Earth to be a few thousand years old
Given that The Catholic Church doesn't believe in creationism (some sort of ill defined God guided evolution) it amazes me that so many other Christians do.
Question 1
a) Are a Christian*
B) Are you a goddamn gay Communist**
Tick the correct answer
* Includes belief in creationsism
** You are worse than Hitler
Creationism doesn't necessarily mean that one believes the earth is only a few thousand years old. It might refer to an old earth and old universe but a young humans creation. It's nowhere written in the OT that the earth is young but the text simply refers to a beginning.
True although many of the more fundamental US churches lean towards the young earth form. The Catholic Church are even comfortable with The Big Bang, presumably believing that God created the conditions for the Big Bang to occur and also presumably guides some of what has happened since. Unless your holy book directly contradicts something I can't see why so many regions (or versions of religions) seem to desire to challenge science on things that could easily be accommodated.
I think one of the reasons is that if you accept an old earth but believe in a very recent human creation, the problem is explaining the fossil record in rocks which are several hundred million years old. It then becomes difficult to work your way around the genesis report which states that humans AND animals were all created recently. The explanation for that fossil record is then the global flood catastrophy.
Well humans are a recent creation compared to the earth. Genesis only talks about the sequence of creation which is fine by science and doesn't specify the timescale (if you accept that days are metaphorical periods).
.... And God rested on the 7 millionth day.
Still having a kip by the looks of it.
Surprised Christians do not embrace Pagans more often considering most of their holidays and traditions were stolen from Paganism.
Apart from the full-on sex of course.
Atheists are discriminated against at times particularly in some countries and discrimination isn't especially amusing no matter what the reason.
Sorry but we need to be real here, when we talk about persecution what come to mind is Nigeria where they throw hand grenades into churches and burn them down, or Somalia where Christians are beheaded for for their faith, or persecution and imprisonment in China, Laos, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Pakistan, etc. Christians are being murdered on daily basis around the world, that is real persecution.
Needless to say I disagree with any form of discrimination, whether its victims are religious or non-religious.
Some of the things mentioned in that article are utterly ridiculous, specially in relation to the US. Barring from public office? Not allowed to be a witness in Arkansas?
Can't see anything there that is worth of a green smiley, assuming what it is in the report is true.
Nor can I see what is wrong in calling attention to a particular type of persecution that is often ignored.
Under your view, only the most extreme examples are worthy of being discussed and everything below that is supposed to be ignored.
Atheism is no more a religion than bald is a hair color.
I'd agree with you, religious people are more persecuted, often by other religions. Tho, the title of the thread is all religions are bollocks. Say all religions were false, persecution of the one "group" of people who are actually right would be somewhat stupid in hindsight.
That's not my view as I have said that I do not condone any type of persecution or discrimination regardless of the victim being religious or non-religious.
But when we talk about persecution then of course I'm going to point persecution where Christians are actually killed in hundreds, or where Christians are arrested, beaten and tortured, all of which happens continuously around the world.
What about the guy who got thrown into the lion pit and then ate the lions? I remember learning about him in sunday school. He seems like a badass.
Why though? Someone posts a document about atheist persecution, with a lot of not commonly known facts, and instead of debating the issue or ignoring it you send a green smiley and mention Christian persecution...
It's just not very logic. Seems a bit agenda driven to be fair, though I don't spend a lot of time in these debates so I really don't know if there's a history to justify your reaction.
It's flat out weird.
"A political dissident was jailed today in China."
" In North Korea political dissidents are sent to concentration camps."
"A political dissident was jailed today in China."
"
In North Korea political dissidents are sent to concentration camps."I thought that we were talking about discrimination rather than it's older stroppy brother persecution.
Discrimination doesn't have to evolve into mass murder to be a very bad thing.
Quite
The Big Question on BBC1 right now debating whether all religions should accept evolution as fact.
It's a good watch, the fact the scientists are clearly more intelligent than the religious side is making it a bit one sided.
EDIT - Its worth pointing out there are religious on both sides, its just one side aren't any scientists.
It's a good watch, the fact the scientists are clearly more intelligent than the religious side is making it a bit one sided.
EDIT - Its worth pointing out there are religious on both sides, its just one side aren't any scientists.
Should all religions accept gravity?
The Big Question on BBC1 right now debating whether all religions should accept evolution as fact.
It's a good watch, the fact the scientists are clearly more intelligent than the religious side is making it a bit one sided.
EDIT - Its worth pointing out there are religious on both sides, its just one side aren't any scientists.
I'm not sure why it matters really. Not really sure on what basis they should have to accept it as fact. If the book you've followed your whole life tells you a different story then you're unlikely to believe evolution.
Religious folk tend to use the saying 'faith denies proof', therefore it doesn't really matter what anyone argues as they've got the perfect get out clause.
For me we should just leave them to it, they are as free as myself to make a decision. We are all able to examine the evidence and come to our own conclusions, the fact that scientists only only know like 1% of everything doesn't really help their case either.
I agree with this, however that needs to be a two way street. Religion needs to have its influence over law & policy which affects everyone, including those who don't have religious beliefs, removed.
Christians are not prosecuted in India.
They preach outside temples to convert to christianity...any other place they'd get thrashed.
- You need look no further than the stultifying of children in America by religious zealots, where, instead of evolution, children are taught hogwash under the fatuous name 'intelligent design'.
- How about: Because it undeniably is a fact.
- You say that as if it's a completely legitimate position.
- Oh, it's far from perfect. It's downright stupid and illogical, actually.
- But not everyone is able to come to the right conclusions, and they need help.
- .. what?
I can feel my IQ draining away reading those quotes.
To be fair I had overlooked how religion is taught in some countries so to that extent you have a point. However if Science and Religion are both free to argue their points fairly then I don't see the problem with it.
In terms to my science point, my friend in a scientist, and claimed that theres still so much to be discovered that its only like 1% of the universe they can claim to explain.
- Science is a methodology, religion isn't (it's just... faith; believing without evidence). Religion doesn't get a say in determining scientific questions.
- Yes, but how does that weaken their case, which is what you seem to be alluding to? The point is that scientists don't tend to make unjustified claims for which they have no evidence, which is in stark contrast to what religion has done throughout the ages (and keeps doing). Science is humility, religion is arrogance.
I also don't recall when science oppressed people, imposed its will on people, and murdered people.
Or done so in its name.
Or done so in its name.
Lots of people have been fecked up under the guise of science, but I understand the point you are trying to make.
Wasn't Hiroshima a need to test the science of the atom? Scientists were devasted by the effects AFTER it happened, but were intrigued like hell not to voice their opinons before.
I do not recall military war cries, "Do it for science/in the name of science!"
They had already tested the bomb just never deployed it on a city/people. The atomic bombing would fall under political/military not religion or science.
Surely there is a massive difference in carrying out military battles in the name of religion (basically anything in the Middle East, The Crusades, Reconquista, etc).
They had already tested the bomb just never deployed it on a city/people. The atomic bombing would fall under political/military not religion or science.
Surely there is a massive difference in carrying out military battles in the name of religion (basically anything in the Middle East, The Crusades, Reconquista, etc).