Whose more insane, me or the rest of society? Read the following blog of bollocks and decide for yourself.

In the first part of this article i discussed how people consider religion as a means of teaching us how to act responsibly.

I received some interesting comments, mostly about how how people felt they obtained their morality from sources other than religion. Perhaps the most interesting comment, and entirely unrelated was a comment from senior stubbyfinger, who informed us he had a large sexual organ. Congratulations stubby...

Right so Religion, morality, back on track. Lets look at the title of this article, "What if religion had admitted it was wrong?". Firstly i'd imagine we'll have some people asking how religion is wrong exactly. Which you know, if you've been sleeping under a rock since Darwin was around, is a highly appropriate question.

1)God made the world in 7 days Genisis etc.

The earth roughly 6,000 years old? I believe that's the figure provided by most creationists i speak with. Well we now know as a FACT (fact as in 1 + 1 = 2. You get me. FACT? Just like the fact you are going to die, just like the fact i'm mashing my keyboard with my fingers as a write this a not my toes - FACT), the earth is much older. The earth is around 4.5 Billion years old. It's difficult to compute exactly as due to the nature of how it was formed. The oldest rocks found to date are 3.9 Billion years old.

The obvious question to follow is 'How exactly did we get here?'. A puzzling question indeed answered by Darwin in his famous book 'Of the Origins of the Spieces'. I won't go into detail for fear of sending you to sleep and wanting to get to my point, but he believed small genetic mutations which happen every generation of a specicies led to how we developed from small microbes in to full fledged humans. Far fetched? What's even more far fetched is the serious amount of evidence that backs this up (galapagos!).

2)Christianity also said that the Earth was the center of the universe.

That the sun revolved around the earth. So when some bloke from tuscani said otherwise, they were quite unpleased! Even after proving that the observation of the planets and the sun suggested that Galleo (yes i'm talking about Galileo here, re the guy from tuscani not Pope Leo I) was right, they had the audacity to turn around and go 'No no no wait you misunderstand us! It may _LOOK_ like the earth orbits the sun, and maths may dictate it, but it infact doesn't! They just appear that way!'. Yes because that's a helpful approach in a reasonable discussion.

We now know of course that earth isn't the center of the universe and that we do revolve around the sun.

So there's two examples for people to consider why i personally think religion has been wrong in the past. On two MASSIVE issues.

Now if i may move on. What i'd like to consider is what if religion had turned around and said:

 'You know what, were based on texts wrote thousand of years ago, when our understanding of the world was very different and people needed a different kind of reassurance. I think it's time we adapt a little more to society'.

I'd guess the next obvious question is what would you change?  I'm not sure, i'm no council of nicaea. I dare say the word religion itself would need a reclassifcation. What is it? If it's not just a story about god and his son, is religion morality? Is it just faith in something?

I've always admired some of the charitable teachings in Islam and Christianity. Yet i also detest how they've been the cause of so many wars and suffering in the past. Do we need religion to do amazing things for one another?

One thing is for sure though while we are unable to prove that God isn't going to smite us all for not wearing condoms, someone should not have the power to continue the spread of aids in one of the most desperate continents in the world by saying using them is indeed sinful.

Nor should preachers be able to convince people to attach bombs on to themselves in the hope of a paradise waiting for them on the other side.

I hope i've not genuinley offended someone with this, well so long as your not offended by just the notion of someone questioning your religion, in which case your ignorant and i'm glad i've offended you.


Comments (Page 1)
on May 07, 2008
Well...you just let loose the floodgates. Hope you're up for a religious argument...it'll start soon enough.

I'll help out if I can...but I have finals to deal with first.

~Zoo
on May 07, 2008

Yep no doubt. I hope it's a decent debate and not a 'INFIDEL! DIE!' etc.

GL with your finals btw .

on May 07, 2008
Having been through the argument several times, it's utterly pointless. I wouldn't waste your time. I guess sometimes one must go through it to see that, though.

Sadly, along with seeing that making the argument was utterly pointless, I was also left with a deep sense of dread regarding the capability of some human beings to bend absolutely anything to make it fit into a mold. It's downright scary.

Good luck, bro. Unlike, Zoo, I shan't be helping because there *is* no helping. When someone looks you straight in the eye and tells you the moon is made of ice cream, your best bet is to just say "yup...sure is" and walk away.
on May 07, 2008

Heh, well put Ockham.

Someone used your namesake today as an arguement for Intelligent Design. Was highly ammusing.

on May 07, 2008

Perhaps the most interesting comment, and entirely unrelated was a comment from senior stubbyfinger

All three of the responses you received were sarcastic because all of us know that religion is not necessary to teach morality as you suggested.

And it's not just a sex organ, I can throw it over my shoulder and no one would dare try and sneak up behind me.

on May 07, 2008

The obvious question to follow is 'How exactly did we get here?'. A puzzling question indeed answered by Darwin in his famous book 'Of the Origins of the Spieces'. I won't go into detail for fear of sending you to sleep and wanting to get to my point, but he believed small genetic mutations which happen every generation of a specicies led to how we developed from small microbes in to full fledged humans. Far fetched? What's even more far fetched is the serious amount of evidence that backs this up (galapagos!).

Actually, let's tell the truth. You made this dogmatic assertion as a matter of pure Darwinian faith. Darwin never answered the question,  "how exactly did we get here?"  in his book or otherwise. Neither have his advocates and true blue followers through today. Darwin,et al,  was utterly unable to explain the complex machinery of the cell. Detailed genetic studies have dealt a death blow to Darwinian lie of macro-Evolution---that theorizes molecules to man natural transformation or one species changes into a completely different one in whihc new, higher genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestors....that wants us to believe we humans descended from apes.

 

Problem is that no mechanism for this to occur has been found...there is no hard scientific evidence that backs up your assertion...for Darwinism stems from one imaginative theory after another of which none have been proved.

 

All evidence collected on natural mutations indicates species degeneration with no record of any improving themselves let alone completely changing species.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on May 07, 2008

The earth is around 4.5 Billion years old.

Where is the proof of this assertion?

on May 07, 2008

2)Christianity also said that the Earth was the center of the universe. That the sun revolved around the earth. So when some bloke from tuscani said otherwise, they were quite unpleased! Even after proving that the observation of the planets and the sun suggested that Galleo (yes i'm talking about Galileo here, re the guy from tuscani not Pope Leo I) was right, they had the audacity to turn around and go 'No no no wait you misunderstand us! It may _LOOK_ like the earth orbits the sun, and maths may dictate it, but it infact doesn't! They just appear that way!'. Yes because that's a help approach in a reasonable discussion. We now know of course that earth isn't the center of the universe and that we do revolve around the sun.

Yes, the earth is at the center of the universe only not the "geographical" center.  First point---The earth is carefully designed as the only center of life.

Second, the very placement of the earth in the universe gives us the best possible view of it as if the Great Designer wanted to help us discover His Handiwork. Our Creator God designed our surroundings for us to discover information about them especially concerning supporting human life. Earth is perfectly positioned to allow us to map the structure of our galaxy even though we are inside it.

Would earth support life at all if it were just a bit smaller or larger? No-- it wouldn't. That's one of the reason why the earth didn't just happen by blind random chance but was made by Almighty God.   

 

 

 

on May 07, 2008

Stubby - Well i didn't say it was the only means to teach morality, but i can see how people jumped to that conclusion.

Lula - cheers for your insights. I'm just about to finish work and can't respond just yet. But i'll set aside some time to let you nkow what i think about your saying shortly.

on May 07, 2008

Even after proving that the observation of the planets and the sun suggested that Galleo (yes i'm talking about Galileo here, re the guy from tuscani not Pope Leo I) was right, they had the audacity to turn around and go 'No no no wait you misunderstand us! It may _LOOK_ like the earth orbits the sun, and maths may dictate it, but it infact doesn't! They just appear that way!'. Yes because that's a help approach in a reasonable discussion.

Oh c'mon?  using the "Galileo affair" spin to attempt to bash the Catholic Chruch.

Well, it's a good thing that the Catholic Church didn't rush to embrace Galileo's views becasue it turned out that his ideas aren't entirely correct either. Science has once again come through for us. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe, and that it does move--it simply orbits the galaxy rather than the earth.

So recent science has shown Galileo was partly right is asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth. Had the Catholic Chruch rushed to endorse Galileo's views and there were many in the Chruch in those days who were quite favorable to them---the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

Last point, the CC has little to apologize for in its relations with science. Indeed, it can be argued that it was the metaphysical framework of medieval Catholicism that brought the first universities, and that made modern science possible in the first place. Stanley Jaki said, "science was still-born in every major culture Greek, Hindu, Chinese, --except the Christian west. As far as the teaching authority of the Chruch is concerned, it's striking how modern physics has played catch-up with Cathollic dogma. In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council taught that the universe had a beginning in time, a scandal then, but which is now common modern cosmology.  

 

on May 07, 2008
Lula - talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, that's all you ever do -

but you don't SAY anything.
on May 07, 2008

1)God made the world in 7 days Genisis etc. The earth roughly 6,000 years old?

Here's what I absolutely love about this one. God creates the world (or entire universe, depending on one's interpretation) in 7 days....... but at that point a "day" didn't exist yet as a measurement of time because the earth didn't exist yet. So God, the creator of the entire universe, decided to build our planet based on an as yet nonexistent unit of measurement. Now considering the vast size of the universe I find it highly unlikely and arrogant to think that we would be the only sentient species he would create. That's an awful waste of all that real estate and mighty boring and uncreative (two attributes I do not think the creator would have) So, if he made other species in magical easy-bake oven format he would then have to craft his creation of their planets to whatever length of time their days would become as well (in order to provide the same biblical references for them) Plus that would mean that eventually, we will probably see one of these easy bake creations through our telescopes "astronomers view planet and ecosystem creation in less than a week!!!" I can see the headlines now.

Crafting all these planets on different units of  time is terribly inefficient, and if there's anything we can infer about God from nature it's that he most likely abhors innefficiency.

So therefore I would like to put forth the position that if God does indeed use units of time to measure his creations, he would probably use a universal scale that applies evenly across the board. Let's call these units "Fleems"

Therefore, the bible should read that God created the earth in so many fleems, and would read more like "In the first 1.73 fleems, God created such and such". If he decided to be a real show-off, perhaps he would shoot to have total creation time of our world to be something like Pi or other funky number of fleems.

on May 07, 2008
Let's call these units "Fleems"


Hmm, I can work with Fleems...yeah.

~Zoo
on May 07, 2008
All three of the responses you received were sarcastic because all of us know that religion is not necessary to teach morality as you suggested.

I wasn't joking, my morality really does come from reasoned selfishness. Well, that and my wife has made a lot less of a callous bastard over the last decade; but that is more a matter of developing my capacity for empathy.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo's views and there were many in the Church in those days who were quite favorable to them---the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

The universe was a lot smaller back then, and embracing Galileo's views would have still been more correct than their current ones.

Stanley Jaki said, "science was still-born in every major culture Greek, Hindu, Chinese, --except the Christian west."

Apparently he was unaware of where our current number system originated?
on May 07, 2008
Detailed genetic studies have dealt a death blow to Darwinian lie of macro-Evolution


You know, for someone that didn't even know what DNA was made of...I think it's quite amusing that you make reference to these "detailed genetic studies"(which you never link to, nor give a name leading me to believe you're making this shit up) that suggest evolution is some "made up theory."(Which is an oxymoron)

~Zoo
Meta
Views
» 4357
Comments
» 129
Category
Sponsored Links