Darwin vs The Bible

[Flying Pig]

As the Theory of Evolution obviously contradicts the Adam and Eve story, what does everyone think is the correct 'answer' to the beginning of the earth creatures. Its obviously to me the Darwin's theory is clear to see with animal etc evolving and improving slightly over millions of years. As for the Bible, which was written by scribes hundreds of years later with no visible proof, I think its a great story by nothing else.

 

I would like to be enlightened but I can't see it happening.

 

Sorry G.R.

[sir roger]

Where's the poll ?

[Indian Red]

I still think the Chuck Norris letting some species to live is the right one

[Thants]

Stewart Lee never said that all religious people were mentally handicapped.

 

 

But they are.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Evolution isn't the only thing that makes The Bible a bit of a joke, there are many things that are clearly bollocks. That doesn't mean that there is/was/can't be a God of some sort. It just means The Bible is bollocks.

[Flying Pig]

Where's the poll ?

 

Never done one. Please Roge do it for a pal. Ta.

[Melchett]

Good read

 

[Flying Pig]

Nice one Melchett. I've just Wiki'd it and got one of his quotes: "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

 

Brilliant.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Good read

 

 

I don't believe in Richard Dawkins.

 

Nice one Melchett. I've just Wiki'd it and got one of his quotes: "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

 

Brilliant.

 

Really? I thought it was conceited, shallow and simplistic. Then again, I'm a little biased as I fuckin' hate Richard Dawkins. He could say that the Earth was round and I'd try to argue the little prick down.

[Melchett]

I don't believe in Richard Dawkins.

 

 

 

Really? I thought it was conceited, shallow and simplistic. Then again, I'm a little biased as I fuckin' hate Richard Dawkins. He could say that the Earth was round and I'd try to argue the little prick down.

 

He both believes and speaks very highly of you.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

He both believes and speaks very highly of you.

 

Well, he believes in me. I can't imagine that he would speak very highly of me, to be honest.

[Thants]

Why the Dawkins angst?

[Flying Pig]

Why the Dawkins angst?

 

Don't know, I think NN hates him and Melchett loves him. Its a love triangle I suppose.

[Stu Monty]

There's already a massive religion thread going over these sort of things. The one point I'd like to add is that if you want to see what complete bollocks the Bible is then the book you are looking for is The Age of Reason by Tom Paine, possibly the greatest Englishman in history.

 

He believes in God. He uses only the Bible to rip apart the Bible. It's a stunning work, especially given it's a century and a half old.

[Jokerman]

I think the mistake that a lot of commited athiests make when attacking religious beliefs is that they believe all religious people take the Bible's word verbatim. Save for a few hardcore evangelists, I don't think many religious people at all take it as fact, and haven't done so for the best part of a century at the very least. I don't see that it is incompitable to follow both in a conventional religion if that's what you choose to do, and also accept Darwin's theories, or rather the Theory of Evolution in particular, as a scientific fact.

 

Whenever I see people like Hitchens or Dawkins speak about religion they seem to be taking a monolithic view of all religious doctrine, and attacking the extremist and destructive elements of religion as though that is the only manifestation of religion. Attacking those elements in itself is fair enough, but it's lightweight fair for a supposedly heavyweight 'intellectual' as Hitchens likes to present himself, and a heavyweight scientist (as Dawkins most definitely was) and it's all very easy.

[WaltonRed]

No such thing as God.

 

Darwin all the way.

[Strontium]

I think the mistake that a lot of commited athiests make when attacking religious beliefs is that they believe all religious people take the Bible's word verbatim. Save for a few hardcore evangelists, I don't think many religious people at all take it as fact, and haven't done so for the best part of a century at the very least.

 

 

Eh, I wish that were true, and certainly in this country our religious people tend to be at the more rational end, but in the USA, a little under half the population are creationists ie they believe the Earth and people were created some time in the last 10,000 years ago in pretty much the same form they exist now. Even here in the UK it's around 20%, which is still a healthy minority believing in absolute nonsense. Go to some countries in the Middle East, and you're talking about 90%+ of the population rejecting evolution.

 

Sensible Christians argue that the Bible is allegorical and not meant to be taken literally, and this enables them to both believe in God and accept evolution, although there's still a certain amount of mental gymnastics needed... there's a recent Dawkins interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury where Dr Williams is visibly uncomfortable explaining how the two are compatible, and the wry smile and twinkle in his eye almost convinces you that the CofE's most senior clergyman himself has his own doubts about Anglican doctrine.

 

The irony of creationism is that I think it actually diminishes God's (purported) achievements. Basically they're saying that he put all these fossils in the ground to trick us, that God is a deceitful bastard trying to pull the wool over the eyes of his creations, and that rather than using the brains he gave us to come to the rational conclusion that the Earth is X billion years old, we should go against logic and sense and reason and accept a fairy story literally. It doesn't sound like any kind of God that someone would want to worship.

[Jokerman]

Eh, I wish that were true, and certainly in this country our religious people tend to be at the more rational end, but in the USA, a little under half the population are creationists ie they believe the Earth and people were created some time in the last 10,000 years ago in pretty much the same form they exist now. Even here in the UK it's around 20%, which is still a healthy minority believing in absolute nonsense. Go to some countries in the Middle East, and you're talking about 90%+ of the population rejecting evolution.

 

Sensible Christians argue that the Bible is allegorical and not meant to be taken literally, and this enables them to both believe in God and accept evolution, although there's still a certain amount of mental gymnastics needed... there's a recent Dawkins interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury where Dr Williams is visibly uncomfortable explaining how the two are compatible, and the wry smile and twinkle in his eye almost convinces you that the CofE's most senior clergyman himself has his own doubts about Anglican doctrine.

 

The irony of creationism is that I think it actually diminishes God's (purported) achievements. Basically they're saying that he put all these fossils in the ground to trick us, that God is a deceitful bastard trying to pull the wool over the eyes of his creations, and that rather than using the brains he gave us to come to the rational conclusion that the Earth is X billion years old, we should go against logic and sense and reason and accept a fairy story literally. It doesn't sound like any kind of God that someone would want to worship.

 

Where do you get the figures from for those statistics, from what survey? Particularly in regards from the U.S. and Western Europe. I'll accept I'm wrong about it being the majority of religious people in these places if it's the case, but statistics can obviously be very misleading at times and usually serve the purpose of whatever the people conducting the surveys want them to do. In any case it doesn't take away from the rest of my point.

[Stu Monty]

Where do you get the figures from for those statistics, from what survey? Particularly in regards from the U.S. and Western Europe. I'll accept I'm wrong about it being the majority of religious people in these places if it's the case, but statistics can obviously be very misleading at times and usually serve the purpose of whatever the people conducting the surveys want them to do. In any case it doesn't take away from the rest of my point.

 

From Gallup:

 

[RedinSweden]

Shrewsbury lad v Pixie in the sky?

 

no contest for me.

[Fowlers God]

think the mistake that a lot of commited athiests make when attacking religious beliefs is that they believe all religious people take the Bible's word verbatim. Save for a few hardcore evangelists, I don't think many religious people at all take it as fact, and haven't done so for the best part of a century at the very least. I don't see that it is incompitable to follow both in a conventional religion if that's what you choose to do, and also accept Darwin's theories, or rather the Theory of Evolution in particular, as a scientific fact.

 

 

To be shot down or not shot down views are based on belief.

 

I am indeed one of the

insane

people that does believe in God and the cruxifiction of jesus to die bla de bla de bla, (you all no the story)

 

My personal belief is that if you are a christian surely you have to belive that the bible is true because you believe in the God that wrote it, (see a bible verse saying that the bible is gods word) cannot remember as not been to church for a while (years) and if you believe in god then the idea is that he is all powerfull enough to have to believe what is in there because it happened. If you dont really believe in an all powerfull god then you wont really believe in the bible. Just a little bit about where i stand,

 

however my question to you is why did God not use the big bang, ect darwins theory?

[RedinSweden]

To be shot down or not shot down views are based on belief.

 

I am indeed one of the people that does believe in God and the cruxifiction of jesus to die bla de bla de bla, (you all no the story)

 

My personal belief is that if you are a christian surely you have to belive that the bible is true because you believe in the God that wrote it, (see a bible verse saying that the bible is gods word) cannot remember as not been to church for a while (years) and if you believe in god then the idea is that he is all powerfull enough to have to believe what is in there because it happened. If you dont really believe in an all powerfull god then you wont really believe in the bible. Just a little bit about where i stand,

 

however my question to you is why did God not use the big bang, ect darwins theory?

 

Do you believe everything in the bible as straight fact though, or human interpretation of God's word?

[Fowlers God]

I think thats what i am trying to say, if you believe in an all powerfull all awesome god taht can do anything and can create the world and the skies ect ect, then surely you have to believe the bible.

 

so to believe in GOD i think yes i have to believe its fact and not an intepretation. This is completley where the faith part of religeon steps in!

[Malarkey]

Thomas Aquinas.

 

[sloth_frattelli]

I believe that when I die it will be exactly as before I was born, an eternity of nothingness. Just like a tree or insect or any living organism has a beginning, middle and an end we do too.

 

Didn't Einstein say that if God didn't exist man would have invented Him?