Richard Dawkins- The Root of all evil

[Aegis]

Well, there are a few cae where Jesus did not preach the word of peace. To quote from the bible: Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke 12:51
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

That's because he knew what would happen. He knew that it was going to cause holy wars, civil war, mass crucifixions etc... That doesn't mean that he condoned violence by humans. Reafirming this is the fact that, as you said, it was only a few cases.

Also, there's still one prickly subject: people going to Hell. I haven't even come close to figuiring out a good explanation myself, so I won't even go into it.

Could you define prickly? I don't really see the problem with the subject as opposed to any other subject in religion.

What I mean is that not only is it one of the most controversial points and one of the main arguements against the goodness of the Christian god, and yet I haven't done any reaserch or even thought very hard about it. I mean, I have a little bit of an idea. Maybe, in order to discourage people from sinning, he made it up. Yes, maybe god lied. There are some cases in which lying causes better results than telling the truth.

Well, actually it is an observed fact. I Japan, one has recorded the growth of a naturally produced bacteria, without any human intervention, which has the unique abillity to digest nylon from human factories. This would mean it had evolved in the last 30 years or so.

This is very different from a collection of molecules randomly becoming a cell, no matter how simple of a cell it is. A virus, possibly, but something has to be (relative to a virus, that is) complex to fit all the characteristics of life. Also, bacteria reproduce at a much faster rate than more complex organisms, and any cell out of millions can be given an advantage in a survival of the fittest situation by that stray U.V. ray. With a large, multicellular organism, it has to hit the DNA of a cell involved in the reproductive process.

I could really get into arguing against evolution, but I don't want to spend the next three hours (or days (or years)) writing up a post. Yes, a large number of arguements against evolution were written by people who don't really understand the theory. However, some of them make a lot of sense.

...I know, I'm being lazy. I probably should really put all of my beliefs into words sometime.

Believe me, if someone had actually unquestionably proved that religion is a load of shit, and I heard of it, I wouldn't lie to myself. As much as I fear having no purpose, I fear living a lie more. Despite this, I'm still a Christian. This is because there is no unquestionable proof of Evolution, and there will never be. I'm not nearly as sure that there is a God as I am that Evolution is an essentially flawed theory.



EDIT: However, MICROEVOLUTION is very possible. Things already within the DNA of the animal, such as different breeds of dogs. Just wanted to clear that up.

[ReaperGal]

There's more evidence for evolution than god.

And yet, somehow, when people believe in the latter, they have trouble believing the former. Is that faith?

[Inderos]

What, you guys don't believe in the celestial teapot? You're all destined for an afterlife consisting of water that refuses to boil!

[Strayed Wanderer]

Aren't we not allowed to have this argument? Especially since god doesn't exist and all...

And Aegis, you are in no way qualified to even relay arguments for or against evolution. No one on this forum, including yourself, has enough knowledge on the subject for a reasonable and worthwhile debate to occur. If for some reason you believe you are knowledgeable enough to discuss this intelligently, don't.

This subject is not a matter of opinion. It is not politics. There is a fact behind the argument, thus you have no right to waste our time listening (reading) to inane dribble about what you learned from an outdated book and high school biology. I'm sorry you were beat as a child, but it is not our fault.

[TeppicTheBloodLyn]

This is very different from a collection of molecules randomly becoming a cell, no matter how simple of a cell it is. A virus, possibly, but something has to be (relative to a virus, that is) complex to fit all the characteristics of life. Also, bacteria reproduce at a much faster rate than more complex organisms, and any cell out of millions can be given an advantage in a survival of the fittest situation by that stray U.V. ray. With a large, multicellular organism, it has to hit the DNA of a cell involved in the reproductive process.

Two things. One: Who ever said anything about random forming of cells? The priomdial "soup" was full of amino acids, which could easily combine under natural conditions, as proved by the Miller Urey experiment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment). Second, the change of genetic matter does not need to the same extent mutation to change their properties in larger animals, because of the trick of sexual reproduction as opposed to asexual reproduction in bacterial life, since the "flaws", or abnormalities form anyway in the process when the genematerial of two different individuals unite in one organism.

I could really get into arguing against evolution, but I don't want to spend the next three hours (or days (or years)) writing up a post. Yes, a large number of arguements against evolution were written by people who don't really understand the theory. However, some of them make a lot of sense.

But the logical grounds they are based on is, most likeley, mute by now. Biology and bioevolution are continually changing subjects, and if the arguments are based on what they learned in college, there is likely to be some misunderstandings, such as the idea that cells form randomly, or the term "survival of the fittest" without defining fittest as "most likely to reproduce".

EDIT: However, MICROEVOLUTION is very possible. Things already within the DNA of the animal, such as different breeds of dogs. Just wanted to clear that up.

If microevolution is possible, why should macro evolution not be possible? Exactly the same processes are iin play, the only differene is that each string of DNA produces a lot more proteins.

Edit:

That's because he knew what would happen. He knew that it was going to cause holy wars, civil war, mass crucifixions etc... That doesn't mean that he condoned violence by humans. Reafirming this is the fact that, as you said, it was only a few cases.

Right, places in the bible where it is directly said that Jesus is peaceful = 3: Luke 2:14, John 14:27, and Acts 10:36.

Now, places in the bible where it is said that Jesus is not peaceful = 4: Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:51, Luke 22:36, and Revelation 19:11.

Feel free to correct these numbers.

[Greatchickenman]

Well, there are a few cae where Jesus did not preach the word of peace. To quote from the bible: Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke 12:51
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

That's because he knew what would happen. He knew that it was going to cause holy wars, civil war, mass crucifixions etc... That doesn't mean that he condoned violence by humans. Reafirming this is the fact that, as you said, it was only a few cases.

So you're saying that you believe in guy that knew that he would cause millions of deaths but decided to keep preaching anyway?
If that's the case then Jesus is an asshole and I don't want anything to do with him.

[Occurrence of Something]

Seeing as religion-related topics never get anywhere good or intelligent on any forum ever, I will go on the record for saying I don't care about this topic, and pointedly abstain from posting in it or any other topic of its nature. This is my official "I don't care" post. Ahem...

I don't care.

*leaves topic*

[Aegis]

And Aegis, you are in no way qualified to even relay arguments for or against evolution. No one on this forum, including yourself, has enough knowledge on the subject for a reasonable and worthwhile debate to occur. If for some reason you believe you are knowledgeable enough to discuss this intelligently, don't.

This subject is not a matter of opinion. It is not politics. There is a fact behind the argument, thus you have no right to waste our time listening (reading) to inane dribble about what you learned from an outdated book and high school biology. I'm sorry you were beat as a child, but it is not our fault.

Strayed has a point. No one on this forum is really qualified to discuss this topic.

[Sarcasm]

And Aegis, you are in no way qualified to even relay arguments for or against evolution. No one on this forum, including yourself, has enough knowledge on the subject for a reasonable and worthwhile debate to occur. If for some reason you believe you are knowledgeable enough to discuss this intelligently, don't.

This subject is not a matter of opinion. It is not politics. There is a fact behind the argument, thus you have no right to waste our time listening (reading) to inane dribble about what you learned from an outdated book and high school biology. I'm sorry you were beat as a child, but it is not our fault.

Strayed has a point. No one on this forum is really qualified to discuss this topic.

Sweet, oozing, irony . . .

[Sling]

There's more evidence for evolution than god.

Considering the guy who came up with the theory later said there was no way it could've happened and considering all the evidence that alledgedly proves evolution was faked. Evolution does exit just not in the way most people think.

Also Jesus does not cause bad stuff to happen, Satan does.
The only time Jesus and/or God would hurt someone was if it was part of a test.

[Strayed Wanderer]

Also Jesus does not cause bad stuff to happen, Satan does.
The only time Jesus and/or God would hurt someone was if it was part of a test.

You know what I call that? The nullifying paragraph. Why? Because it invalidates everything you have said or ever will say.

[Sarcasm]

There's more evidence for evolution than god.

Considering the guy who came up with the theory later said there was no way it could've happened and considering all the evidence that alledgedly proves evolution was faked. Evolution does exit just not in the way most people think.

Also Jesus does not cause bad stuff to happen, Satan does.
The only time Jesus and/or God would hurt someone was if it was part of a test.

And why do you think he has said that?
Either money or being forced by the government,
Evolution is real, There are evidence for it literally everywhere.

[TeppicTheBloodLyn]

There's more evidence for evolution than god.

Considering the guy who came up with the theory later said there was no way it could've happened and considering all the evidence that alledgedly proves evolution was faked. Evolution does exit just not in the way most people think.

Also Jesus does not cause bad stuff to happen, Satan does.
The only time Jesus and/or God would hurt someone was if it was part of a test.

Let's quote from Darwin's biography:

"Charles Darwin recounted in his biography of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin how false stories were circulated claiming that Erasmus had called for Jesus on his deathbed. Charles concluded by writing "Such was the state of Christian feeling in this country [in 1802].... We may at least hope that nothing of the kind now prevails." Despite this hope, very similar stories were circulated following Darwin's own death, most prominently the "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915 which claimed he had converted on his sickbed. Such stories have been propagated by some Christian groups, to the extent of becoming urban legends, though the claims were refuted by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians."

[Sling]

Fair Enough

[Aegis]

Evolution is real, There are evidence for it literally everywhere.

Couuld you give us an example? Not just that the process works to an extent or on a small scale, but evidence that it actually produced all of the life on Earth today?

I admit that I'm not really qualified to argue the biological arguements against evolution, but neither is anyone on this forum qualified to argue the biological arguements for evolution. Otherwise, it's just a double standard, or do we have a biology PhD on these forums?

Also, in my opinion, the whole "god is testing us" is the worst Christian explanation for the existance of pain. If he is testing us, what is he testing us for? God wants us to have free moral choice, and therefore allows human beings to cause harm to eachother, because otherwise we would just be another kind of animal that happens to have a talent for creating technology.