A Discussion/Debate on Religion & Other Closely Related Topics

[Gatefan1976]

Ignore is the wrong word for that look at from a different world view would be better. Two people can look at the exact same data and come to different conclusions.

Not without some shared commonalities.
For example, dispite their various.........ummm....... "interperative differences", the major Monotheistic religions share some pretty obvious commonalites, the various polytheistic/pantheonistic religions also share some commonalities. The problem is, an always will be is the belief that one interpretation is "better" or "more right" than any other, and unfortunately it is monotheism that tends to take the hardest stance on these things.

[Col.Foley]

Not without some shared commonalities.
For example, dispite their various.........ummm....... "interperative differences", the major Monotheistic religions share some pretty obvious commonalites, the various polytheistic/pantheonistic religions also share some commonalities. The problem is, an always will be is the belief that one interpretation is "better" or "more right" than any other, and unfortunately it is monotheism that tends to take the hardest stance on these things.

Why is it wrong to have preferenes or think that something is better then another thing? If you are religious, if you have a political, social, or moral world view, surely you think that is better then the other world views you have considered? Sure you might consider others...and you might treat them with respect but you believe one way and they believe another.

[aretood2]

Why is it wrong to have preferenes or think that something is better then another thing? If you are religious, if you have a political, social, or moral world view, surely you think that is better then the other world views you have considered? Sure you might consider others...and you might treat them with respect but you believe one way and they believe another.

Because he believes that they are wrong...

[Gatefan1976]

Why is it wrong to have preferenes or think that something is better then another thing?

Human history is not littered enough, nor written with enough blood of the victims of those who thought that they not only had a right, but a duty to enforce thier wills on others?
Having strong beliefs is fine, in fact, you can always say someone else is wrong and believe it, where the line is crossed is when you are so afraid to be wrong that you must eliminate the opposition.

If you are religious, if you have a political, social, or moral world view, surely you think that is better then the other world views you have considered?

No, I don't and I know that annoys the ever living junk out of you, and others who feel the same way. Sorry, I just don't fit into your nice little "boxes". I find all views valid and of some use, even the ones I may not agree with, and sometimes especially them.

Sure you might consider others...and you might treat them with respect but you believe one way and they believe another.

True, does that mean either of us are right, or have the right to tell the other that they are wrong?
Religion, morality, law, politics, these are living concepts, and they must be challanged, they must be re-evaluated on a constant basis, to not is to slip into a world where a singular viewpoint reigns supreme, with all the failings that come with any static system.

[Gatefan1976]

Because he believes that they are wrong...

No, I think blind adherance to anything is wrong, there is a difference.

[aretood2]

No, I think blind adherance to anything is wrong, there is a difference.

Curious here, would you consider my beliefs to be blind adherence? Don't be shy about answering. I am genuinely curious and also wonder what is and what is not blind adherence (before I can say that I agree or disagree with you I have to know).

[Gatefan1976]

Curious here, would you consider my beliefs to be blind adherence? Don't be shy about answering. I am genuinely curious and also wonder what is and what is not blind adherence (before I can say that I agree or disagree with you I have to know).

Good question.

To *me* blind adherance is despite all reasonable, and reasoned evidence to the contrary, "you" still believe in "one way being the right way"
For example, lets take evolution. As a scientific theory, it has FAR more legs than "the 7 days of creation". or any of the more simplistic creational views of any religion. Now, here is the twist, I believe that the far more simplistic views hold an *element* of truth to them, but *only* an element. To use an old example, Norse creation holds that it was the interaction of the fire of Muspelheim and the ice of Niffelheim that caused the creation of Midgard (our universe). Being an (relatively) inteligent bloke, I can ignore the "flowery context" and say "two elements collided and created the universe", which fits in with both the Norse creation concept, and the far more proven scientific concept of creation and evolution.

Where the "problem" lies however is the notion that "if I believe in Muspelheim and Niffelheim, I *MUST* believe in Audhumla as well", or, alternatively, If I believe in the existance of Jehovah I must accept every other element of the mythology as well, and following that "logic" everyone else is wrong, and therefore a threat to my "concept of truth".

Do I think *you personally* are blind in your adherance to your faith? Dunno.
Do you think that there is a chance that you may be wrong?

[lordofseas]

Interesting, can you elaborate on that?

People in modern societies are raised with concepts such as full equality of the sexes, equality of all sexual identities, the scientific method, etc. With people being raised in both religions that preach that women should be subservient to men, that homosexuals should be stoned, with concepts such as the Big Bang, Evolution, even gravity not formalized as theories, there is the attempt to salvage modern society with the attempt to make false parallels to the religion in question. While the New Testament says nothing on the equality of the sexes, there's the floating concept that "it's what Jesus would have wanted". Then the United Churches completely jump over the lines about homosexual acts (whether or not the translations are faulty, I'm taking it from the translated versions that are approved of and used by the United Churches), and say that homosexuality is fully compatible with Jesus and the Church. It isn't. So, we have this archaic model of the Church, and I could go into the archaic model of the Caste system of Hinduism, and others, and we also have the attempt of fitting modern society with it. Which abrogates various passages of the religious works.

Such as?

For starters, the Flood. Never happened. Joshua and the Sun? Never happened. Moses and the plagues? Never happened. The THOUSANDS of Resurrections at 3 PM when Jesus died, and walked around the city of Jerusalem? Never happened. This is incompatible with modern science, and with history. And people believe it. And you have to deny that the history, the science to believe it. Or you have to deny that it happened, which contradicts the religion. You can't have both.

I don't pity them at all, because as we see every day aound the world, they are also the more likely to drag everyone else kicking and screaming down with them, or attempt to justify thier beliefs by scilencing dissent.

I pity them, not sympathise. They are human beings, and so I'll give them that. I can't give them more.

Ignore is the wrong word for that look at from a different world view would be better. Two people can look at the exact same data and come to different conclusions.

Two different worldviews are different than two contradictory statements. Take my pet subject, evolution. We have facts. Now, one side says evolution is true, and one side says evolution is false. They can't both be right. They can't both be a legitimate worldview.

Short version

I half agree with the D-L to a point when it comes to a code of ethics that would govern a pluralistic society. But when it comes to smaller factions within a society, I disagree with him. I am "fundamentalist" in the sense that I take the bible to be historically factual and accurate. I see it as a reliable witness of God's plan, will, his past dealings with humans, and his standards. Yet I do not think that imposing bible based standards will be very helpful on the world as a whole. Bible based standards have to be accepted as a result of careful personal analysis of all the available evidence.

And the revelations of God, the Almighty, creator of the Universe, they all happened in the same 100 KM area? Why not appear to the Chinese? They could read and write, and had a grasp of the scientific method. And why 4000 years ago? According to science, and demonstrably provable fact, human beings have lived on Earth for at least 100,000 years. And you are asserting that after 96,000 years of human suffering, slaughter, and sorrow, God decides to intervene in Bronze Age Palestine, climaxing with a human sacrifice, and the injunction to spread the "Good News", that still has not penetrated various parts of the world? This is God's plan? This is a crappy plan.

I simply don't expect the whole world to do such a thing, so we as an entire species do need to look elsewhere for a system that could mitigate conflict and chaos. Though I do not believe that a system outside of Bible based standards will solve all of the worlds problems.

Neither do I.

Long version
Why I think literalism has little to do with this subject.
The problem with liberalism is often that fundamentalists aren't the final authority on what is literal and what is not. Any large body of literature contains metaphors and analogies and symbolism. Within the greater Christian community there is constant debate on what part of the bible is meant to be literal and what part isn't.

No, I don't ask fundamentalists what they think. I read the text, and then I take it literally, unless there's a heading like "proverb" or "psalm" or "Parable of the Floating Mystical Sheep". If it doesn't have a title or subheading that directly states an analogy, I take it as literal. Which is completely fair.

Some "fundametnalist" Christians take Genesis chapter 1 as metaphorical while others take it as allegorical and others as literal. It's not a la carte. This is the problem when it comes to religious texts. The imagery and wording can cause confusion as to what is meant to be literal historical record, what is meant to be prophetic (and in what capacity, be it historical, allegorical, or metaphorical). Compare Jehovah's Witnesses with LDS Mormons who both are labeled as having a literal intepritation of the Bible. Their views differ greatly in many areas, yet agree in others. Both have extra biblical books (Book of Mormon for LDS and several dozens of authoritative books and magazines for JW's).

Of course it's a la carte. It's what suits the religious sect the best. It's in the best interest of the Catholic Church to ascribe to the scientific theories of the day, therefore they accept evolution and the big bang. Various Protestant sects reject evolution, because they ascribe to Biblical Literalism. It is truly a la carte. Whatever suits their desires is chosen.

As it happens, I haven't really read the Book of Mormon. It truly is chloroform in print. (Mark Twain).

What actually forms these churches are not a historical curiosity that develops in the minds of the individuals, but responses to cultural and social movements. In the case of LDS Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, both can trace their cultural lineage to the second great awakening. All of these movements that resulted from the second great awakening are in a sense fundamentalist yet their views yet have different believes. Seventh Day Adventists believe in the trinity, a position held by many fundamentalists, while Armstrongism (various off shots of the Adventist movement) sees the trinity as a pagan lie.

Yes to the first part, I don't particularly care about the second.

What we have there are two fundamentalist taking radically different interpretations from a text that is seen to be equally literal. Throw in their sabatical movements vs non sabatical movements and you have an even greater range of interpretations. For example, some fundamentalists (Pentecostals) believe in glossolalia while other fundamentalists (Some southern baptists) do not.

Let me clarify right now. I don't care about the external consistency of the religions. I know that they (the monotheistic) are pretty much incompatible with each other. I am looking at the internal consistency. Is what the Jehovah Witnesses say congruent with the Bible? Is science congruent to what the Jehovah Witnesses are saying? I don't really care about whatever spats the Mormons and the Protestants have with Biblical literalism. As far as I care for the sake of analysis, they're two different religions, and should be treated that way. I'm willing to go refute either one just on the basis of that religion alone.

I other words, I don't think it's about literalism. A la carte religion does not deal one way or the other about literalism. It is simple willful ignorance of sacred text. If a religious person who is not "a la carte" debates scripture or a sacred text with a person who is "a la carte" the response that the a la carte believe will give is "I believe." The objections given by the none-"a la carte" believer would be "but it says it there in scripture!"

Yes.

Where I believe the first ethical codes came from and how they relate to humanism.
So as to the issue of ethics and religion? To me, it actually depends. What do you mean ethics? Do you mean general societal norms to govern entire cultures and prevent conflicting moralities from causing conflicts among moral agents? In that case a universal moral code is needed and in the light of a pluralistic society imposing one set of morals (be them of religious or none-religious origin) would inevitably cause conflict.

I disagree. I think that there are some fundamental values that should be laid down, in order to have a pluralistic society, and for it to work. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful protest. All of these are a fundamental set of societal norms that are required for a pluralistic society to function.

[lordofseas]

For this universal code to work it must be general enough that all factions of a society will be able to swallow. If it is too broad it will fail to prevent conflict. If it is too specific it will defeat the purpose of being a system accepted by different factions.

Yes, almost. There are some groups that will never accept certain values. They demand supremacy, and are willing to do almost anything for it.

For me the morality/ethics must then be determined in absence of any particular religion while yet being sensitive to a plurality of religions and none-religious beliefs. Will this form a perfect society? I don't think so because at some level there will always be factions of society with conflicting moralities that will collide due to the scarcity of resources. Will it serve to mitigate these conflicts? Yes it will, but only to a point. It'll prevent unrestrained lawlessness and anarchy, but injustice will still be known.

Yes.

Now within an individual framework, I think that ethics must be tied to the best possible system that can provide a workable and none-burdensome ethical framework. What can constitute as burdensome is subjective to the individual. To develop a group code of ethics the individual must sacrifice some of his views to consolidate with other individuals to form a group. To avoid conflicts in developing, an authoritative structure of which all individuals can agree on must exist. For the humanist it is the framework established by eons of religious development in human society throughout the world. But before humanism existed in any form, original moral principles developed aside religious principles that were meant to provide single societal norms. These societal norms were established to diminish the existence of conflicting moralities within a population of multiple individuals.

Every person is not going to agree on one thing. There will always be dissent. This is why we have government. To do the will of the majority, while protecting minority rights under constitutional and judicial systems. And those original moral principles with religion? Not exactly moral in our society today.

Humanism, in my opinion, is only possible thanks to the long history of religious monopoly of ethical codes. It is easy to then accept base morality first, then quantify it in none religious principles. During that process some principles can be abandoned, this is what essentially has happened in the development of humanism.

Correct. Humanism is the result of the religious moral codes of the world being examined, dissected, and put together in a manner pleasing to the people that put it together. Humanists did not find the concept of female subservience pleasing, especially the female humanists. So it was discarded for the better concept of equality of the sexes before the law.

Religiously derived structures are the original vehicles that societies have used to form ethical codes of conduct so that individuals can all agree with minimal conflict to one base code of ethics.

No. Religious structures were created by society to ensure that everyone followed the rules. If you say people will burn an eternity in hell if you don't listen to them, people tend to listen. Especially when they don't know better. But religion has created conflict, especially when two contradictory ones meet each other. Or even two mildly different ones.

My answer to the D-L's position of where ethics should come from

The issue with early societies is that they were homogeneous. In their small isolated worlds their one religion was enough to insure stability. However once they began interacting with other societies, their moralities conflicted. Due to the scarcity of resources, compitition developed and became justified by morality (where you get allegations that war is caused by religion).

Sometimes. Sometimes it was that. But, if religion was not the cause, then religion and religious sentiment certainly exacerbated the conflict, and sometimes prolonged it to the point of stupidity.

This process grows and continues. This is why you have those fundamentalists who try to blow things up. Because there are too many different moralities and too little resources that a history of conflict has developed as a result. The historical precedent is strongly imposed in the cultural memory of each faction that is in conflict. Challenges to the narratives of each faction causes more conflict. The best way to disarm this conflict is to look for a universal code of ethics that does not challenge the narratives of each faction. To do this, religion must be ignored.

You're going too easy on the terrorists. What, they can't think for themselves? Yes, you need to challenge the narratives of each faction. You need to make them think about why they believe in things they can't prove. They blow things up because they think they're right. The terrorists on 9/11, they were well educated. They knew exactly what they were doing. And they flew themselves into the towers because they had the audacity to think that they were right, and they were doing their religion a service. Sure, culture may have played a factor. But I can't forgive them, or any terrorist, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, that kills others because they can't think for themselves. The man who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin, the former Israeli Prime Minister? He studied at Bar-Ilan University. Why did he do it? Because he was misappropriating the Biblical lands promised to the Jews, and throwing it to the Muslims. Anders Breivik thought that the Muslims were invading Europe, or would soon. These people were all sane. They had functioning minds. And you can't blame conflicting moralities for the acts of terrorism. You can only blame the rigorous ideology that they ascribe to.

Within each faction (or group) religion will continue to serve as an internal code of ethics. Personally, I do believe that my code of ethics is irrevocably tied to my faith. I believe that my faith is a result of reason and observation of the evidence presented to me in my life that legitimizes it. Since I see my faith as proven, then it only makes sense to use it as the bases of my own personal ethics. Since my personal code of ethics has not caused the oppression of others, I am led to believe that it is the best code of ethics on a personal level.

Great. Good for you.

Religiously I believe that in the world to come, this code of ethics will become the universal code. My duty as a moral agent is to share the theory to all those who are willing to see and hear. They themselves will then decide, based on their own observations, the validity of the code that I have accepted. If they come to the same conclusion based on a careful analysis of the evidence, then they will become my brothers in one faction. If they do not accept the same code that I have they will continue on their lives to the best of their ability outside of my faction.

What happens in the world after, to the people that don't agree with you? Does God forgive them? Or does God send them to hell or a similar place?

Why is it wrong to have preferenes or think that something is better then another thing? If you are religious, if you have a political, social, or moral world view, surely you think that is better then the other world views you have considered? Sure you might consider others...and you might treat them with respect but you believe one way and they believe another.

Well, firstly, respect is earned and lost based on merit, not on existence. Secondly, it isn't wrong to have a preference on a matter that is of subjectivity alone. I prefer alcohol. A friend of mine is allergic to alcohol. She doesn't prefer alcohol. It's subjective. The statement that there is an singular religious truth of existence out there, however, that is not subjectivity. Either it is true, or not true. And that has every right to be dissected as much, and I'd say even more, than any political or social view.




I'm tired.

[Gatefan1976]

People in modern societies are raised with concepts such as full equality of the sexes, equality of all sexual identities, the scientific method, etc. With people being raised in both religions that preach that women should be subservient to men, that homosexuals should be stoned, with concepts such as the Big Bang, Evolution, even gravity not formalized as theories, there is the attempt to salvage modern society with the attempt to make false parallels to the religion in question.

Whoa here sunshine, you are contradicting yourself here to an extent.
*IF* people are "brought up in ignorance", they are hardly brought up with the concepts you outlined in your opening line, are they?
NEVER make the assupmtion that just because a different viewpoint exists, ANYONE is willing to entertain them, especially when they are taught to think that any "deviation from the norm" is inherently wrong.

While the New Testament says nothing on the equality of the sexes, there's the floating concept that "it's what Jesus would have wanted". Then the United Churches completely jump over the lines about homosexual acts (whether or not the translations are faulty, I'm taking it from the translated versions that are approved of and used by the United Churches), and say that homosexuality is fully compatible with Jesus and the Church. It isn't.

I disagree.
The notion of homosexuality *IS* compatible with the core view of Jesus, it IS however non-compatible with the concept of "Jesus within the church".

So, we have this archaic model of the Church, and I could go into the archaic model of the Caste system of Hinduism, and others, and we also have the attempt of fitting modern society with it. Which abrogates various passages of the religious works.

I give not a flying toss about ANY church, I figured you would understand that by now.
Let me make this very clear, I don't care about churches, I don't care about organizations, I don't care about the local Wiccan circle observing the Sabbats, I care about different views being held with the respect thier actions deserve, or don't deserve.

For starters, the Flood. Never happened. Joshua and the Sun? Never happened. Moses and the plagues? Never happened. The THOUSANDS of Resurrections at 3 PM when Jesus died, and walked around the city of Jerusalem? Never happened. This is incompatible with modern science, and with history. And people believe it. And you have to deny that the history, the science to believe it. Or you have to deny that it happened, which contradicts the religion. You can't have both.

Yes, you can, and I'm not sure what to say to you to make you entertain that concept.
It doesn't *require* believing in the "literal", it reqires belief in the *notion*. No flood, fine, no ressurections, fine, no plagues, fine.
The question in the end is, do these things have to be "real, documented historical events" for them to be of use to the human equation?

I pity them, not sympathise. They are human beings, and so I'll give them that. I can't give them more.

Fair enough.

Two different worldviews are different than two contradictory statements. Take my pet subject, evolution. We have facts. Now, one side says evolution is true, and one side says evolution is false. They can't both be right. They can't both be a legitimate worldview.

I hate to break it to you, but yes they can. You are confusing "fact" with "right".

[lordofseas]

Whoa here sunshine, you are contradicting yourself here to an extent.
*IF* people are "brought up in ignorance", they are hardly brought up with the concepts you outlined in your opening line, are they?
NEVER make the assupmtion that just because a different viewpoint exists, ANYONE is willing to entertain them, especially when they are taught to think that any "deviation from the norm" is inherently wrong.

I don't think I've mentioned ignorance. I'm talking about in a modern society. Implying Western. I'm not talking about the reclusive peoples of Saudi Arabia and areas of the Middle East. I'm talking about people raised in our societies, and the parents would have to be more restrictive than Joseph Fritzel to ensure that they had absolutely no exposure to modern society. The talk of those brought up in a repressive society is a different subject, that I'm willing to have more compassion for.

I disagree.
The notion of homosexuality *IS* compatible with the core view of Jesus, it IS however non-compatible with the concept of "Jesus within the church".

Jesus said sexual immorality made a man unclean. It is well defined in both sections what this is: adultery, homosexuality, incest, and beastiality. It is not compatible.

I give not a flying toss about ANY church, I figured you would understand that by now.
Let me make this very clear, I don't care about churches, I don't care about organizations, I don't care about the local Wiccan circle observing the Sabbats, I care about different views being held with the respect thier actions deserve, or don't deserve.

My apologies for elaborating on that. Perhaps if you sought a clearer explanation of my views, you would have been more specific in your inquiry.

Yes, you can, and I'm not sure what to say to you to make you entertain that concept.
It doesn't *require* believing in the "literal", it reqires belief in the *notion*. No flood, fine, no ressurections, fine, no plagues, fine.
The question in the end is, do these things have to be "real, documented historical events" for them to be of use to the human equation?

Just because the notion is provocative, doesn't make it true. I care about whether or not it is true, not whether or not it may or may not have been use to humans. Of course they can be of use. Anything can be used. I don't care about that, I care about truth.

I hate to break it to you, but yes they can. You are confusing "fact" with "right".

Not at all. I'm using "right" with the definition of "correct". Evolution cannot be both true and false. Therefore, one must be right, and one must be wrong. A contradiction cannot exist in reality.

[Gatefan1976]

I don't think I've mentioned ignorance. I'm talking about in a modern society. Implying Western. I'm not talking about the reclusive peoples of Saudi Arabia and areas of the Middle East. I'm talking about people raised in our societies, and the parents would have to be more restrictive than Joseph Fritzel to ensure that they had absolutely no exposure to modern society. The talk of those brought up in a repressive society is a different subject, that I'm willing to have more compassion for.

So, "western society" NEVER Insulates it's young from what the "parents" may view as "heretical"? You are kidding right, there are entire sections in the joke department *specifically* based on this notion. Let me ask you, do you feel sorry for the white guy who gets the crap kicked out of him for accepting a black guy, or for the straight guy who gets the crap kicked out of him for defending a gay man?

Jesus said sexual immorality made a man unclean. It is well defined in both sections what this is: adultery, homosexuality, incest, and beastiality. It is not compatible.

You know, I don't recall any "Jesus section" in the Bible, just interpretations of what he may or may not have said by people.
Funny that.

My apologies for elaborating on that. Perhaps if you sought a clearer explanation of my views, you would have been more specific in your inquiry.

Don't apologise, thats stupid, lets work out what we both meant, that would be useful.

Just because the notion is provocative, doesn't make it true. I care about whether or not it is true, not whether or not it may or may not have been use to humans. Of course they can be of use. Anything can be used. I don't care about that, I care about truth.

Then Science has no value to you, it is based on "best fit" theories, no matter how well explored they are.

Not at all. I'm using "right" with the definition of "correct". Evolution cannot be both true and false. Therefore, one must be right, and one must be wrong. A contradiction cannot exist in reality.

No, you are not.
Evolution and creationism *can* co-exist to a extent. Evolution can explain *how* things happen, it cannot explain *why* things happen. Both need to recognize where one starts and the other continues. Explain to me in pure scientific terms *why* the grouping of certain amino acids formed chains which over time (evolution) became the life forms we know today.
You can say "Chaos theory", "Luck", "Chance", or even just the simple "**** happens", none of this explains WHY any of it happened at all.

[lordofseas]

So, "western society" NEVER Insulates it's young from what the "parents" may view as "heretical"? You are kidding right, there are entire sections in the joke department *specifically* based on this notion. Let me ask you, do you feel sorry for the white guy who gets the crap kicked out of him for accepting a black guy, or for the straight guy who gets the crap kicked out of him for defending a gay man?

I never said that, and besides, if parents do insulate their children, it's not nearly to the extent of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Not nearly. Of course I feel sympathy for the people that stand up for others. But our society is not nearly as repressive, and our children have far more access to knowledge than children do in a country that is repressive of outside, rather than kids in North Korea or Saudi Arabia. There's absolutely no comparison.

You know, I don't recall any "Jesus section" in the Bible, just interpretations of what he may or may not have said by people.
Funny that.p

And if we are taking things literally, then the 4 Canonical Gospels, for the purposes of this discussion, are to be taken seriously.

Don't apologise, thats stupid, lets work out what we both meant, that would be useful.

Yes, let's.

Then Science has no value to you, it is based on "best fit" theories, no matter how well explored they are.

What? Every theory that has major support is the theory that fits best with the facts.

No, you are not.
Evolution and creationism *can* co-exist to a extent. Evolution can explain *how* things happen, it cannot explain *why* things happen. Both need to recognize where one starts and the other continues. Explain to me in pure scientific terms *why* the grouping of certain amino acids formed chains which over time (evolution) became the life forms we know today.
You can say "Chaos theory", "Luck", "Chance", or even just the simple "**** happens", none of this explains WHY any of it happened at all.

Why is a different topic. Evolution satisfies the biological question of how humans came into existence. Asking why is redundant. The question "why" in this context leads to an infinite regression. You're assigning a purpose behind something that occurred naturally: that is, without guidance. And what form of creationism should we accept? Christian creationism? Hindu? Mayan? Greek? Mesopotamian? Egyptian?

[Gatefan1976]

I never said that, and besides, if parents do insulate their children, it's not nearly to the extent of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Not nearly. Of course I feel sympathy for the people that stand up for others. But our society is not nearly as repressive, and our children have far more access to knowledge than children do in a country that is repressive of outside, rather than kids in North Korea or Saudi Arabia. There's absolutely no comparison.

Hang on, it's a matter of *degree* now?. Never kid yourself LOS, western society is no less "repressive" than "eastern society", the East is just more likely to kill you themselves, whereas the west will wait for you to do it to yourself so it feels "better" about itself.

And if we are taking things literally, then the 4 Canonical Gospels, for the purposes of this discussion, are to be taken seriously.

Why?

Yes, let's.

Then praytell, go on.

What? Every theory that has major support is the theory that fits best with the facts.

Really?
Explain why Christianity is the major religion of the "West" then and has major support.

Why is a different topic. Evolution satisfies the biological question of how humans came into existence.

So what? If thats the position you want to take, Science has no business in morality, it's a different question isn't it?

Asking why is redundant. The question "why" in this context leads to an infinite regression. You're assigning a purpose behind something that occurred naturally: that is, without guidance.

You are assuming facts not in evidence, we can play this game for all eternity if you want

And what form of creationism should we accept? Christian creationism? Hindu? Mayan? Greek? Mesopotamian? Egyptian?

No form, merely the idea, the concept.

[lordofseas]

Hang on, it's a matter of *degree* now?. Never kid yourself LOS, western society is no less "repressive" than "eastern society", the East is just more likely to kill you themselves, whereas the west will wait for you to do it to yourself so it feels "better" about itself.

Tell me, how many schools were allowed to burn down with little girls inside because they weren't wearing veils?

Why?

Because, unless the Bible declares the one part to be a parable, which it does in some areas, it claims the others to be true. Therefore, it must be treated literally.

Really?
Explain why Christianity is the major religion of the "West" then and has major support.

The support of Christianity is slipping fast in many European countries, and Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It's even eroding in the US. But why is it a major religion? Well we have the Established Churches, which for a long time supported them. Then we have the parent-child relationship, which often passes on the religion. It's a "vicious cycle". A child is born, grows up in a Christian household, becomes an adult, gets married to a person of a similar religion, has children, teaches them. That's why. Every infant, when born, is an Atheist. They don't know about a God. They are merely raised with that concept, and when you are raised with something, you take it to be true.

So what? If thats the position you want to take, Science has no business in morality, it's a different question isn't it?

Evolutionary biology doesn't have any business in morality. And honestly, I don't want it to. Darwinian morality is rather scary, and is not something I'd like to have in our society. There is a case to be made for neuroscience and psychology being involved in morality. Different areas of science, though.

You are assuming facts not in evidence, we can play this game for all eternity if you want

It's a matter of semantics. Why is a redundant question. Asking Why those Amino Acids joined together is seeking a purpose in a rather purposeless setting. There wasn't a purpose, there wasn't a guide. If a God designed humanity, then that God must have just used their thumbs, because our bodies are not that wonderful. Evolution through natural selection explains it.

No form, merely the idea, the concept.

On what grounds? Because we need to have been designed?