Might be against the rules

[prophecy holder]

As the title suggest, I don't know if this violates the rules or not. So if it is, then delete.

Question:

Do you beleive religion is becoming obsolete in todays world?

Weird question right? I'm just wondering, I've recently read that more and more people are becoming atheists and I'm quite bothered by that statement because I'm a religious man myself. I do not condone what others say and do (as in beleive my religion for it is true and yours is not) but I respect others personal beleifs to the best that I can. But still, many claim atheist is a fad since most atheists (55% according to a census taken by the bbc) are below the age of 35 while only a mere 30% are over the age of 50. I kinda agree with it that it's becoming a fad is because our morals have changed as well as our behavior.

In todays society, people have become materilistic greedy people. Only thinking for themselves and wanting to get as much sex as possible while filling up thier pockets of money. The world is practically becoming idiocracy and it's happening all to quickly. Religion goes against most of what these people want to do, so they toss it aside and say "god doesn't exist because it's silly to not do that and that". It's become the new "cool" to say god doesn't exist, to say you are in control of everything you do. When you look at society today and how they act and talk to one another (specially America's), can you really blame them?

"In the United Kingdom, a 2007 survey found 15% of the population attends church more than once per month.[18] A poll in 2004 by the BBC put the number of people who do not believe in a God at 39%,[19] while a YouGov poll in the same year put the percentage of non-believers at 35% with 21% answering "Don't Know".[20][dead link] In the YouGov poll men were less likely to believe in a god than women, 39% of men as opposed to 49% of women, and younger people were less likely to believe in a god than older people.

In early 2004, it was announced that atheism would be taught during religious education classes in the United Kingdom.[21] A spokesman for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority stated: "There are many children in England who have no religious affiliation and their beliefs and ideas, whatever they are, should be taken very seriously." There is also considerable debate in the UK on the status of faith-based schools, which use religious as well as academic selection criteria. A 2009 study reported that two thirds of teenagers in the UK do not believe in God.[22]"

Yes it's taken from wikipedia and it's also popular to hate wikipedia. But still, 35%-39%? Wow that's a lot. I know religion is a taboo subject, but what do you guys and gals think?

Again if it's against the rules, go ahead and happily delete it.

[Jeff]

Not sure, but anything with politics or religion usually ends up in big debates on some forums.

[prophecy holder]

Ya I know, but I just want to hear what some of you guys think of the above. I just blame the way society has become for the supposed "Decline" in religion. For it's really not a decline in religion, but more of a decline in society and our moral obligations. Imo.

If this does become a huge flame bashing debate, I am sincerely sorry. I didn't mean for it to happen. But, you know....how people act today.

If this thread gets locked, by tormorrow, I completely understand.

But if some people want to talk privately, then that's ok.

[Thief]

I just think that religion is less loud than it used to be. Media entertainment and the media play big roles. Rarely is religion projected to the public in a positive way, mostly revolving around the negative, ugly incidents/aspects. People listen less and care less.

Also I find that articles about discoveries in space always brings out the Creationists vs Evolutionists types. Comment sections are filled with both types trying to get their points across. Then some John/Jean Doe, with an open mind, who was raised in one way or another might read the comments for awhile and start to have doubts and question their own beliefs. Words can be oh so powerful.

I'm also religious, but I've questioned things and have sometimes not been able to come up with an answer that satisfied me. I always like to listen in, and sometimes join debates about religion. Not once have I not been entertained, even when the bashing begins. :)

[Rapture_Rising]

Question:

Do you beleive religion is becoming obsolete in todays world?



That is really a yes and no answer, Yes because more people arent religious or religious enough to attend church, and no because there are still people out there who still find religion relevent.

IMO Religion is becoming less relevent because of all the scientific breakthroughs mankind had made in the last 200 years.

[thefly]

IMO Religion is becoming less relevent because of all the scientific breakthroughs mankind had made in the last 200 years.

It is pretty sad humans are the only form of life that can even consider these things.

[wayskobfssae]

And yet there hasn't been this much crusading going on since the dark ages.

Evidence doesn't really matter all that often. Science has its very own way of proving itself, and that method was invented by science. In all actuality, that it the same kind of circular thinking that science accuses religion of. I'm not saying its wrong... there are plenty of ways that I'm thankful for science and can appreciate it, but science is very VERY close to being just as overbearing as the Church that condemned it hundreds of years ago. The institution of science as a whole is almost a religion unto itself, and its very frightening.

But to say that the existence of god is false, simply because the existence of a god can't be tested, is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard of in my life.

[prophecy holder]

Iwas looking in some of the wrong places. I figured out why there is such a rise in atheism (sometimes its just simple, also talk to a lot of people) and the answer was right in front of me. Materialism, the more a civilization is materislistic, the less likely they will have faith.

Before people scream at me saying this is wrong, check your digital watches on your computer or iphone in your nice air condition house with probably two cars in your driveway and all the fancy gizmo's in your house. :)

Its been stated (by atheist and faithful) that most atheists today are just agnostic. Confused people that dont know what to beleive or want 100% proof that god exists. Also, it's cmmon to lose your faith a couple times in your life. Bad things happen and you question why god allowed this to happen. Perhaps you were just born in a household that doesnt beleive in religion.

Its a test of faith, choose what you wnt to beleive. But please, keep it towards yourself. I beleive there is a god out there, many do and do not. As i said, you just got to have faith.

Article about materialism and an all to familiar look on our society.

http://www.yuvakranti.net/message/spiritual.htm

Also:

http://searchwarp.com/swa549101-How-Is-Materialism-Destroying-Society.htm


"Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors"

Sir Isaac newton.

Highly regarded scientist.

http://atheist-nutters.blogspot.com/2007/09/atheists-are-hypocrites.html

Just for lol's at those "I am better than thou" Atheist that might be reading this. I will warn about the better than thou atheist coming in bashing people for thier beleives. So much for thier "moral superiority"

[bazboyz]

couple of interesting points raised here is a couple of quotes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kK1YgR7J0g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcncPpQ8loA&feature=related

[Nessus]

If the first 10 minutes of Zeitgeist has it right then we are entering the age of Aquarius in 150 years or so and at the beginning of an age the world sheds it's old religion for a new one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw

[peoplessi]

prophecy holder, to keep this discussion some-what rational and civil, you need to stop making assumptions on people that might disagree on your views.

"Perhaps you were just born in a household that doesnt beleive in religion"
"But please, keep it towards yourself"

Religion and faith are close, but are not synonyms to each other. I don't see religion as a necessity to have faith in god or some higher power - name it what ever you wish. Some people feel the need for religion, some don't.

Religion has very little to do with science and there are more atheist scientists, than there are religious scientists. Also, I see no need in mixing the two. Ethics, moral and those things aren't religion. Faith and rationality are things that do mix with science.

I'm not highly religious, but I don't feel it makes me any worse. I don't see how belonging to a certain religious group proves anything. Religion is bit like double-edged sword, it brings the best in some people and the worst in some. It's a powerful thing and people have a need to have something to believe in - or some people do.

Some people are willing to believe they are the only ones believing in the right god, or higher entity. Who is right? How do they now? :) Some religions go so far as to say everybody that doesn't share their believes will go to "hell". I don't like that, all people are equal. No matter what you believe or don't believe.

[prophecy holder]

Religion has very little to do with science and there are more atheist scientists, than there are religious scientists. Also, I see no need in mixing the two. Ethics, moral and those things aren't religion. Faith and rationality are things that do mix with science.

Science and religion may have been at eachothers throats for years, but they have worked together in the past. Some of the greatest minds the world has ever seen were religious men, well knowing what science could and could not achieve.

Big ego's who will not accept anything the other says exist on both sides. Some people want to beleive life was an accident, that there is no purpose in life and we are just meat puppets to reproduce with nothing to look forward to. When we die, that's it for the rest of eternity while others want to beleive there is more to life than just materialistic goods and what we see in front of ourselvs every day.

Who's to say which side is right or wrong? Maybe it's for the best that we will never know which side is truely right.

[Xgthug]

I'm undecided on this one.

It has come to my understanding that the majority of people share the opinion that you don't need religion to have morals, but I find that everyone, including religious people, are completely rotten inside, sparse of any moral fiber whatsoever.

Even the people who claim to have morals these days display very little dignity.
Getting inside a "Christian" girl's pants is just about as easy as any other piece of trim.
Sad but true.

[wayskobfssae]

I'm undecided on this one.

It has come to my understanding that the majority of people share the opinion that you don't need religion to have morals, but I find that everyone, including religious people, are completely rotten inside, sparse of any moral fiber whatsoever.

Even the people who claim to have morals these days display very little dignity.
Getting inside a "Christian" girl's pants is just about as easy as any other piece of trim.
Sad but true.

My way of looking at it generally, is I'm fine with spirituality and religion, but dogmas are often an issue. More specifically, a problem arises when people go out of their way to do nice things, just so they can please their pantheon, out of fear of going to Hell if they don't. The Hell factor is really no different than doing an act while being held at gunpoint by someone saying "Do what I say or die." This obviously doesn't make someone who is a truly nice person. Either do good things because you like doing good things, or if you do it because you want to please a Deity, do it out of love, not out of fear.

[Xgthug]

My way of looking at it generally, is I'm fine with spirituality and religion, but dogmas are often an issue. More specifically, a problem arises when people go out of their way to do nice things, just so they can please their pantheon, out of fear of going to Hell if they don't. The Hell factor is really no different than doing an act while being held at gunpoint by someone saying "Do what I say or die." This obviously doesn't make someone who is a truly nice person. Either do good things because you like doing good things, or if you do it because you want to please a Deity, do it out of love, not out of fear.

As a deist, I can understand the belief and worship of the creator of the universe, but that's not the problem that generally comes to mind in those opposed to religion. It's usually when people go out of their way to bash another group of people, waging wars or spreading hatred, condemnation, and fear that people tend to get ticked off by the religious folks.

The question of this thread is: "Is religion obsolete in today's world?"

This gives me very mixed feelings.
I think religion has it's place, but should have boundaries.
I do not think that religion should be abolished or that a ban on religion should ever be enforced, but by the same token, I do NOT believe that parents or schools should force ANY belief system on their children... and yes, that includes evolution.

I used to be strongly opposed to all religions, especially Christianity,
but the belief that mankind is sinful in nature and is in need of a savior doesn't seem so far-fetched to me anymore. Taking a quick glance at the world at any given point in time should be enough evidence of that people are crappy, unless you have some kind of naive perspective that there's such thing as truly "good people" here.
I've come to understand that while the Christian philosophy can be one's biggest fear, it can also be one's greatest comfort depending on how you look at it.

But there are two things I seriously question in particular with Christianity:

1. The legitimacy of the Bible and the prophets that wrote it.
2. Why did God create/allow evil/sin?

Those questions have bounced me around between Christianity, agnosticism, deism, to a state of "Where am I and what's the point of anything?".

Currently, I am under the impression that there is no right answer to anything, and it's not worth thinking about, however, I am hopeful that there is a savior, because I believe in the human soul, and I believe in consequences.

[wayskobfssae]

2. Why did God create/allow evil/sin?

I have a rather dark view on this, but then again, when you don't have the modern Christians sugar-coating everything saying that God is all about Love and nothing else, it's probably spot-on.

Do you remember the lysine contingency in Jurassic Park? The dinosaurs were genetically tainted so they couldn't produce lysine. It was meant to prevent the dinosaurs from escaping the park, forcing them to be dependent on lysine supplements provided by the park staff.

That's the shorthand of it without making a tldr out of my post. You can probably put 2 + 2 together from there.

[Xgthug]

I have a rather dark view on this, but then again, when you don't have the modern Christians sugar-coating everything saying that God is all about Love and nothing else, it's probably spot-on.

Do you remember the lysine contingency in Jurassic Park? The dinosaurs were genetically tainted so they couldn't produce lysine. It was meant to prevent the dinosaurs from escaping the park, forcing them to be dependent on lysine supplements provided by the park staff.

That's the shorthand of it without making a tldr out of my post. You can probably put 2 + 2 together from there.

I don't think that contradicts with the Christian belief system. I seem to remember many Christians saying something very similar to that, basically "God made us to be dependent on Him, and He gave us free-will".

But if you ask me, that right there is a terrible combination, which means He would have knowingly set up the majority of his creation to die and go to a hell that wasn't even created for humans to begin with.

Stupid animals (people) should not have a choice as to where they spend eternity unless they AREN'T dependent on God, because while not everybody wants to follow God, NOBODY wants to go to hell.

He would have been aware of the grim outcome of his creation before he had even created it, and yet still allows them to blindly wander into eternal damnation.

Another thing that disturbs me about Christianity, is the concept that people can be "deceived" or "blinded" by the devil or their own sin, sometimes even possessed by demons. So where's the "free-will" in that?

If God is going to give humans the ability to choose where they spend eternity, then they should at least be given a very clear perspective on the decision they're making, rather than live a life of uncertainty, pain, and confusion, concluded with "Whoops! Wrong faith. To hell with you."

[Pansa]

Science and religion may have been at eachothers throats for years, but they have worked together in the past. Some of the greatest minds the world has ever seen were religious men, well knowing what science could and could not achieve.

You can't really make alot of assumptions you are "stateing" as facts.
Yes, for a long time many scientists where spiritual, or specificly religious.

But in hindsight? Would you argue that most american politicians where religious right now?

And there is another matter of communicating to uneducated masses via the same parabels that religion uses.

As for my personal believe?
I don't believe in a god that matters. I do believe though, that alot of religious writ is a power full writeup about different theories of unknown things and the human psyche.
Some of it is written to cosolidate power, and others more of a groundwork for human interaction.

Organised religion imho has dropped the ball, in "updating" their factual material, without loosing the moralistic groundwork.
And sciences have eroded on religions "factual statements" without providing the infra-structure.

And imho the timeline is the otherway around:
Materialism isn't the cause for religious decline, but the effect of religion becomeing more at odds with reality again.
And it is not as if the churches have been free of materialism at any specific point in time either.
To modern people organised religion in its current form is a spreding cancer of ignorance, and imho these people have a point.
On the other hand, these exact people try to find that this ignorance is the only conclusion to spirituality, which i don't think is valid.
Spirituality takes the form that is demanded from it's followers, and some systems are more harmfull than others, some basicly condone and push materialism (looking at you rightwing sects in america).

I have NO idea why the christian churches never jumped on genesis and tried to VALIDATE evolution with it.

It is personaly frightening to me, how many fundamental thoughts are expressed in holy writ, and anoyed to see organised religion squander EVERY oportunity to "update", and rather focus on the BS parts, and completely ignore or missrepresent the content.
ANd im furious what can call itself christian in the world, allthewhile almost exclusively relying on the OLD testament, and warping those age old texts into some meaning for our modern world, that so obviously only should be seen as anachronistic analogies.

Tl;dr:
I am with ways post on this.

For me, the whole thing boils down to thoughtless egomania vs observation based.
And as long as neither religions nor sciences are really able to stop for a moment and give "true rational" instead of "forced following".
Shit is going to be more egomaniac.
It is the only logical result, if you fail to inspire people with a moral fundation of "why you should be nice". Since being an ******* obviously pays better.

[Theseus314]

Do you beleive religion is becoming obsolete in todays world?

No. God is pretty good actually for me. And religion does a lot of good all around the world to this day.

I am a very liberal Christian mind you.

[Jokke_r]

Imo, religion isn't really relevant for myself personally, and that in the future, questions that previously people have turned to religion for answers can be found through education and science. My opinion is that it is a lot harder to be an atheist than to be religious, you don't need to know anything to be able to believe in god, but if you are to be able to not believe in god then you will have to base your view of reality on something else than holy texts and myth. You will have to learn about astronomy, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology. To have a rational foundation on your view of reality.

I find that a lot of younger people who claim to not believe in god and to be atheist are really just caught in a fad, some of them might actually educate themselves and form their own understandings and opinions about religion and stay atheist while a few will become deeply religious but most will simply become agnostic.

Now before someone skews the meaning of the word atheist let me say: An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god or gods. A lot of religious people like to claim atheists believe god doesn't exist therefore atheism is a religion. There is a huge contradiction between those definitions. Atheists claim nothing. All it takes to be an atheist is to not believe the stories and such about gods are true. And the lack of evidence is the most important point.

Easiest way to explain atheism to a religious person, for instance a christian, is to explain that the christian doesn't believe in zeus, odin, apollo, buddha, allah, krishna etc etc. That makes the christian an atheist in relation to all of those deities. An atheist has the same opinion about your christian god, that you have of those other gods.

Also Prophecy holder, a lot of your arguments are fallacies, You've dug up the old classic: Appeal to Authority, twice already. It's absolutely irrelevant if some important scientist was religious, Newton's theories are completely secular, you don't need to add in a god anywhere when calculating some basic Newtonian physics. Just because some person was an authority on subject A (physics) would not have made him an authority on god or philosophy. And considering the time when Newton lived, it would have been unbelievable if he would have been an atheist.

[Syph]

Bear in mind also, the ones considered great minds of the past would likely have been put to death as heretics for NOT believing in god (That is their one TRUE god of course.)

I believe in reality, logic, things I can see, touch, hear, smell and taste. I find organized religion to be irrational, and yes, unnecessary. It yields no benefits with the exception of a comfort story for people afraid to die and unwilling to accept the fact that when the lights go out, that's it. End of the line.

Of course that's only my opinion since logically, being fallible as we all are, nothing can really be proven.

[Pansa]

I believe in reality, logic, things I can see, touch, hear, smell and taste.

I don't believe this is strictly true for anyone.
Not unless you include "reports by someone else about what he saw, and who you think is trustworthy",
"storys i believe are true, because they overlap with your percieved reality", and "visiual representation of data, someone else explains to me what i am looking at".


You will have to learn about astronomy, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology. To have a rational foundation on your view of reality.
And in doing so, you either have to redo human history, or trust sources... semiblindly.

science education is filled to the brim with dogma, with the inclusion that "if the math fits, its correct".
It is filled the same way with dogma, the way stuborn religions are filled with it.

Dogma isn't a purely religious thing. Dogma starts if something is to complex to explain profoundly in short time, and you skip it with "everyone knows".


An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god or gods. A lot of religious people like to claim atheists believe god doesn't exist therefore atheism is a religion.
That argument has never made sense to me, because we have a word for people who just don't believe.
Its "Agnostic".

Where is the point in shifting one word to mean the same thing as another, and "luckily" loosing a word for the more extreme?

Atheists write books about why they believe other people should stop believing. That doesn't really overlap with your definition.

I will argue that both words are often missued, but that doesn't change what they both are.
Atheists believe that god doesn't make sense, and religion is therefore abusing a fictious idea.
For me personally god is a metaphoric construct, to explain the feeling our brain has, when we see something truely incomprehinsible to us.
I understand what situations make people think that this metaphorical person is a bit more than a methaphor.
But i don't think it actually really MATTERS if that god was real or not.

All i know is that the specific metaphors that have evolved and demand treatment BEYOND the metaphor, are abused by people,
And that alot of the metaphors need serious updateing to be of any meaning to us.
Although nothing concerns the question whether some of the metaphors actually describe something real.

All i actually SEE is a quareling between activist atheists and activist believers about ultimatetly irrelevent BS, just to undermine the others powerstructure.

[Jokke_r]

Well it's not really irrelevant bullshit when it starts to get mixed up in politics like it has. Because some of the founding principles of various religious beliefs is to spread those beliefs. I'm all for a free society where anyone has the right to believe or not to believe. But if your beliefs are to push your beliefs onto me then i have to stand against that.

I don't agree with your views on scientific "dogma", you might have had a bad experience with science education but don't assume it's like that everywhere. And studying science is also very much studying history, understanding why people sought answers for some questions and how they figured stuff out. Actually knowing why and how people discovered the earth wasn't flat and how it actually revolved around the sun is important, even though the fact that the earth is round and revolves around the sun might be considered trivial information that "everyone knows".
Same with evolution, some people just take it for granted, they don't actually care enough to look into what it's about or how it works or how they discovered it. And some people object to the very idea of evolution and reject it without even understanding anything about it. Most people who debate against evolution truly have no idea how it works and what all the evidence for it is. It's not just about opinions either. And the "it's just a theory" argument doesn't hold any water, it's also called the "theory of gravity" and "the atomic theory". There's a huge difference in science with a hypothesis and theory. The idea of god would be classified as a hypothesis, which is equivalent to a scientific: What if!

Also any respectable dictionary defines atheist as someone who lacks the belief in a god or gods. Agnostic is more like an ignorant atheist (considering the word agnostic is derived from greek meaning ignorant/not knowing) who simply hasn't formed and opinion yet. An atheist has looked at the evidence and arguments for god and creation and concluded that it simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny, therefore he lacks belief in it. IF by some magical event, real hard evidence for god would show up, any true atheist would reconsider the evidence and change their opinion, that is of course the scientific method.

[wayskobfssae]

Well it's not really irrelevant bullshit when it starts to get mixed up in politics like it has. Because some of the founding principles of various religious beliefs is to spread those beliefs. I'm all for a free society where anyone has the right to believe or not to believe. But if your beliefs are to push your beliefs onto me then i have to stand against that.

I presume that banning religions from school doesn't fall into this category?

I think preaching (oh, sorry.. teaching) evolution to every single child in the country far outweighs any power that the religions are exhibiting over people's beliefs in modern times. Schools haven't even been willing to include intelligent design, and I don't even mean as a course, but just as a single day's lesson to be glanced over while discussing evolution. That's not political?

Nobody ever looks at this as spreading influence because everyone just treats it as, "Oh its not forcing anything. It's OK because its a theory, not a belief."

Yet even Dawkins, the grand master of ramming his fist up the arse of the divine, has hinted that darwinism/evolutionism is a horrible and dangerous mental standpoint for a society to base itself on. Yet if he saw a kid admiring a pretty flower, he'd go over and drag her into to his narrow-minded reality by telling her that its just a propagation tool. Naa... there's no selfishness there, right? I guess that's how science gets away with it. If you do something in the name of God, you're a Crusader. If you do something in the name of Science, you're just observing.

Put kids into a classroom and tell them that they're just animals driven by random chemical and electrical impulses... guess what, that's how they're going to behave and look at life, and society will mentally de-evolve. And you don't need to look far to see that this is indeed happening.

"You and me are nothing but mammals, so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel."

[Rapture_Rising]

I personally think that both creationism and evolution shouldnt be taught at school or to be more precise primary school.

Here in Australia it wasnt taught at school but in high school (especially year 8) about once a month some different religious entertainment group tried to persuade us to go to church, I actully got suspended because i walked out of one of the preaching sessions, I fully respect anyone who is religious but i dont like to be preached at.

[Jokke_r]

Considering i'm not from the US, things might be very different there. In Finland we have what you would call a state church, the protestant evangelical lutheran church of Finland. It has an elevated position as the "official religion of finland" which the majority of religious people in Finland adhere to. As special perks of this position, people who are registered with the church pay a church tax, which is 1% of their monthly income. And for that tax they essentially get a grave spot and the right to marry/baptise and what not in the church. Because of this, finnish state backed schools have mandatory courses in religion (for people who are members of the church). Those consist mostly of reading about religious figures and mythical events from the bible.
Those people that aren't members don't attend the religion classes but instead take a parallel course which is mostly a large overview of all the religions and ethics/morality. In junior highschool and beyond thats what the "religion" class is also mostly about. We studied all the major and some of the minor religions in the world, what they believe in, their holy texts their creation myths/ethics and morality. For most part both these courses were pretty much a secular overview of religions in general, while the official religion course had bit more christian undertones.

Now i don't really see anything bad about teaching religion in a secular fashion in school, tbh i think it should be mandatory and is also somewhat the reason why i became an atheist, not because of spite against it but because highlighting the ridiculousness of other religions made me notice the plot holes in my own religion. I never was very religious to begin with, attending church maybe once or twice per year, usually near the beginning and the end of the school year when our classes used to go to church and sit there and sing psalms for like 40mins, no big deal.

There was never any confusion for me about evolution either, evolution was taught in biology class, intelligent design of the story of creation was only mentioned in religion class and was never stated as factual, nothing to take too seriously.

The reason Intelligent design shouldn't be taught in biology or science class is because it's not science. We don't teach flat earth theories or timecube or astrology in science class either, for a reason. No matter what your personal views on evolution is, evolution can be proven and intelligent design can't.

[Syph]

Being atheist does not mean being cold and mechanical in your view of life as I've seen stated. I believe in no deities or written texts because we humans simply made them up. But that doesn't mean I have no spiritual side. We were a species lucky enough to develop higher brain functions and opposable thumbs, so yes we have advantages that set us apart from other animals, but we're still animals nonetheless, and just because we are an accident of nature doesn't mean we can't make the most of the time we're lucky enough to have here and do some good in this world.

[Xgthug]

The reason Intelligent design shouldn't be taught in biology or science class is because it's not science. We don't teach flat earth theories or timecube or astrology in science class either, for a reason. No matter what your personal views on evolution is, evolution can be proven and intelligent design can't.

Oh get over yourself. Evolution cannot be proven, otherwise it would have been already. It is just a theory, just like Intelligent Design. Neither of them should be taught in school.

[Paroxysm]

Oh get over yourself. Evolution cannot be proven, otherwise it would have been already.

Perhaps you should read up on it. Evolution is proven and even observable (bacteria would be your best bet due to fast reproduction). Now the exact processes evolution has taken is up for debate and further study. Gravity is a fact although perhaps we'll find all we know about gravity isn't exactly right but that's no reason not to treat gravity itself as fact.

---------- Post added at 07:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 PM ----------

It is just a theory, just like Intelligent Design.
Intelligent design is in no way considerable as a scientific theory

[Jokke_r]

Evolution is most definitely proven to as high a degree as feasible without directly observing speciation of a higher life, simply because this would take thousands and thousands of years, but then again no one has ever seen an atom.

Quite recently even a strain of bacteria evolved the ability to consume nylon, a material which hasn't even existed on this planet before 1935. Shared retroviral DNA in both human and ape DNA, which means at some point our common ancestor had a virus insert dna sequences into it's DNA. Both humans and ape have this sequence in their DNA, in the same place. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

[Rapture_Rising]

Oh get over yourself. Evolution cannot be proven, otherwise it would have been already. It is just a theory, just like Intelligent Design. Neither of them should be taught in school.

Its like Relativity, Its still only a theory but it gives us the best understanding and makes the most sense. Sure it might be wrong but there is always room for improvement.

Im not saying crationisim is wrong but it makes more sense then all being created by the "hand of God".

[Pansa]

Im not saying creationisim is wrong but it makes more sense then all being created by the "hand of God".

The problem is, there isn't ONE form of creationism.
(Aswell as several diverging degrees of what people think of as evolution)

Creationism reaches from the imho clearly insane 6000 years crowd, to a more philosophical question about the chemical begining of life.
Creationsims includes even a crowd who believes in darwinian evolution, and "only" rather argues a panspermia idea as initial offset.

The first problem in that complete fight over education is that religous fanatics want to mask an idea as fact, even in the parts we KNOW are wrong.

My personal believe? Darwinian evolution seems to be spot on, and with the advent of DNA evidence rather moot to discuss.
As for everything pre-cell? I don't think we will ever be able to sufficiantly be able to prove whether it all started by weird chemical energyflows near a underwater vulcano, or in porous clay particles in raindrops or if we are somehow seeded by asteroids or an inteligence (abandoned terraforming anyone? ^^)

And i don't think it really matters.

But i loved the Futurama take in yesterdays episode "A clockwork origin".

[bazboyz]

I found this on youtube to I think its a test of faith http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ&feature=related

[wayskobfssae]

While we're on the subject of evolution vs. creation, don't forget the commonly unsung cousin to it, the Big Bang. That one encourages metaphysical thinking far more than pondering the origin of life.

Science: If God created the universe, then where did God come from?

Religion: If the Big Bang created the universe, then where did the matter come from?

There's really only two things that the fence is there for: arguing about where life came from, and where matter came from.

[Delicieuxz]

If the first 10 minutes of Zeitgeist has it right then we are entering the age of Aquarius in 150 years or so and at the beginning of an age the world sheds it's old religion for a new one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw

Line by line, Zeitgeist is complete fantastical fiction. It doesn't make the reverse true, but pretty much not a single line in that Zeitgeist mocumentary is any more legitimate than its two sources of a deceased self-claimed practicing druid (with no education in any relevant fields), and a sensationalistic crystal-wearing astrologer who bases her ideas off of where those of the practicing druid left off, and after taking some crazy pills to augment the facade.

[Nessus]

Line by line, Zeitgeist is complete fantastical fiction. It doesn't make the reverse true, but pretty much not a single line in that Zeitgeist mocumentary is any more legitimate than its two sources of a deceased self-claimed practicing druid (with no education in any relevant fields), and a sensationalistic crystal-wearing astrologer who bases her ideas off of where those of the practicing druid left off, and after taking some crazy pills to augment the facade.


Line by line it's nonsense huh? About ten years of independent research into the Ancient mystery schools tells me it's dead on accurate. What parts do you find false?

[Delicieuxz]

Line by line it's nonsense huh? About ten years of independent research into the Ancient mystery schools tells me it's dead on accurate. What parts do you find false?

Well, it mis-conveys the story told in the Egyptian Book of the Dead, re-telling it not as it is actually is in the book in many, many ways. It makes up claims concerning Christian lore in order to make connections that aren't there (like those 3 stars representing the 3 wise men from the Jesus birth story... the problem being that there aren't 3 wise men in the biblical story, that's a pop fiction number, which certainly didn't exist 200 years ago, much less 2000), and it outright lies on numerous fronts (such as stating that Isis' name is Isis-Meri in order to make a connection to Jesus' mother Mary... but Isis' name is not Isis-Meri, it's just Isis. Meri is not a name, it's the ancient Egyptian word for "beloved," and Egyptian rulers sometimes had the term suffixed to their name, and all gods could potentially bear the suffix [but the Zeit-people figured it would best suit their goals if they associated it with Isis... even going so far as to claim it was part of her name], and also, Egypt's ancient name is also Ta-Meri, meaning "beloved land." Point is, it never was part of Isis' name, and has no relation in meaning or appearance to Mary.). I also recall a claim about Jesus as the Son of God being compared to Horus being the Sun god (comparing Son & Sun to draw a resemblance), which was so unbelievably, incredibly and thoroughly stupid beyond imagination - because those are English words, and neither existed at the time of the inception of those characters, and their language-authentic names and titles bear no resemblance.

I'm meaning line by line pretty literally, and not as hyperbole. I haven't watched it since around the time it came out, but it was as un-researched and fantastical as it was inspired by hokey sources, and has been thoroughly discredited many times over, by theists and atheists alike. If they could have backed up even just a single claim by a single Egyptologist... you can be damn sure they'd have been all over that. There's a good reason why the film has no professional sources. Gerald Massey was even lied about on their website as having been an Egyptologist at one point, but I think they got ripped so hard for it that they removed that claim. No Egyptologist has accepted his interpretations of the hieroglyphs, which he never had formal training to read but claimed to be self-taught.

The religion chapter of the film was even ripped apart on the forums of the atheist site Stupid Evil Bastard, and the 2nd of two sources for the religion chapter of the film, and the only living one (and hokier of the two), Achayra S, actually showed up herself to protest and had her claims subsequently ripped to shreds and was pretty much laughed out of the place.

Zeitgeist made noise when it came out, but I think it was mostly discarded as fluff within a year of its debut. Even the creators seemed to be sheepishly admitting the information of the religion chapter was unsound when they pleaded with people to not dismiss the later two chapters because of problems in the first.

[Rapture_Rising]

A quote from the simpsons, just tweaked it a little -

Zeitgiest is true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is no.

[Nessus]

If Zeitgeist told even one truth that would make it more accurate then the old testament.

I haven't seen it in some time myself, I'll have to go back and give a look at some of your points, thanks for the detail of the post.

One other thing, if there are not three stars in Orions belt that line up to the sun on December 25th than how many are there and where? You seemed to know some more about that then you went into.

[peoplessi]

Delicieuxz, For me the greater point was the fact how much all the religions remind of each other. It's true that the facts aren't totally accurate and presented only in a favorable way. Doesn't remove the fact how similar all these "religions" are.

As for rest of the "documentary", I didn't really care. The religion connection is evident with little research / study.

[Jokke_r]

Conspiracy theorists and theists are different sides of the same coin. They cannot think rationally when it comes to their beliefs. And they want that which they believe to be true. I don't care either way when it comes to anything, as long as it's the truth or as close to it as possible.

[Delicieuxz]

One other thing, if there are not three stars in Orions belt that line up to the sun on December 25th than how many are there and where? You seemed to know some more about that then you went into.

It's not that there aren't 3 stars in Orion's belt, it's that there aren't 3 wise men in the biblical narrative. It's said that wise men visited Jesus, but no number of them is given. The number 3 has been a modern, and I guess sort of pop culture number to correlate to the three different types of gifts that were brought: gold frankincense and myrrh.

The other thing about this, though, is that December 25th was not originally considered a birth date for Jesus, and neither Christmas (obviously) nor Sol Invictus were established around the time of the Jesus story's creation. In fact, what I'm reading on wiki right now is that the festival of Sol Invictus seems to post-date Christmas' celebration on Dec 25th, with Christmas' earliest recorded celebration on Dec 25th being AD 243, and Sol Invictus' being in AD 354 (though it was previously celebrated since 274 in August and on December 11).

---------- Post added at 10:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 PM ----------

I did a quick check up on old posts to refresh my memory on what some issues were, and if you're going to watch it again, some fact-checking to specific claims the film makes are:

- Isis was not a virgin. Isis was married to Orisis, and it's assumed their marriage is consummated. Nothing in the Book of the Dead suggests otherwise. Additionally, Isis sews together Osiris' murdered and dismembered body and proceeds to have sex with his body, resulting in Horus' birth. Nothing resembling virginity there, or immaculate conception.
- Horus' mother's name is Isis, not Meri, not Isis-Meri. The Isis-Meri claim was invented by Acharya S, who is not an Egyptologist, but a UFO-ologist and astrologer. I've mentioned what Meri means.
- Seb is not Horus' dad, Osiris is Horus' dad. Seb is Osiris' dad.
- 2 people born in a place where the color blue is present wouldn't make them comparable, much like an "inconvenient place" doesn't. Being born in a cave vs born in a manger doesn't make for any comparison. Horus was also not born in a cave, but born in a swamp. The unfounded cave claim comes from Acharya S.
- Horus was not heralded by an angel or star. This claim once again comes from Acharya S.
-Jesus was not born Dec 25th. Christmas' date is a celebration date, not Jesus' perceived birthday. That's beyond basic. For Zeitgeist to claim Jesus was born on Dec 25, is really, really... really dumb.
- Seth (or Set) tried to kill Horus, not Herut.
- Horus was never baptized, nor is there a baptist mentioned in any of the Horus stories. This claim originated with Acharya S, based on claims by Gerald Massey, who is the person the Horus = Jesus idea originates from.
- Horus didn't have disciples. he had 4 (as opposed to 12) demi-god followers, but they weren't disciples.
- Horus never walked on water or raised the dead