the death of Christianity

[Finch]

Most of the oldest religions of cultures that left records are dead. Religious fervor so great that some were driven, an often succeeded, in driving eachother off the face of the planet… have often been unable to withstand the test of time. There may be a natural turnover rate for religions as old ones die out and new ones form. If there is truly a god, and I think so, I hope he preserves in some form what he feels we need to know through time. I think he will.

If he has, then what may constitute most religons is a fluffy filler that changes with time and angenda, but a core that stays the same

 

[Red G]

I'm roman catholic and there about 1 billion of us around. so I don't think Christianity is dying religion. But I can't speak for other Christian groups though.

 

[jm82792]

I am a cristian I don't think it is dying out at all look at china While America is decreasing

 

[Wesley]

Wesley- I find those definitions lacking and full of problems. If I apply the same ideas those defintions do then physics can be defined as a religion. I am not saying I have a better definition, infact an anthropologist once looked and found 250+ different definitions of what constituted a religion so its something that is hard to define.
As for my personal beliefs I am agnostic though I find the teachings of Muhammad to be much more in tune with what I believe than any other relgion.

Also where are these cave drawings of dinosaurs? I would like to see this information. I have never heard of them. Pictures would be even better. And what were these cave drawings dated to?

As for the reason dinosaurs died out I believe it happened when they voted to allow gay marriage wasnt it. LOL No wait it was smoking that killed the dinosaurs.

The definitions were just according to a dictionary. Nothing more, obviously they have holes, but a core definition of which was pulled from other definitions to make a broad definition.

Ok so, originally I was just going to find some comical bullcrap for the cave drawing but had a harder time doing that than finding something of value. Heck, they're a bunch of Harvard people.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/sauropods/supai4.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophism/sauropods/supai.html&h=280&w=400&sz=14&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=W2PYMRjYCtuSUM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCave%2Bdrawings%2Bof%2Bdinosaurs%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-USfficial%26sa%3DG


I don't know about how the dinosaurs died, I say they were on crack.

Edit: the link has a smiley in it! LOL

 

[ktulu]

Yes they may be from harvard but it also is from 1926. The picture quality is bad and makes it hard to judge its true dinosaur form. Also there are several other glyphs of "unknown" form which leads me to believe this painting may have a different meaning than a dinosaur. Also 12million(last dinos) minus ~10,000 (first humans in N. America) still leaves about 11 million 990,000 years between the last dino and the first humans that could have seen them. Something tells me this picture is not quite what its cracked up to be. Unless of coarse the clovis people had time machines. LOL

 

[jimscott]

I don't see why some Christians get so pissed at the theory of evolution. I don't see why God couldn't have made everything through evolution.

I don't have a problem with that at all. We weren't there. We can't possibly know how He did things. He could have zapped things into existence, some 6,000 years ago, as the literalists theorize.... or he coulda done it over trillions of years time. My bet is on the latter. Does it really matter how he did things? The real is issue is whether He is the author of it all or not. I say He is and I don't care how He did things.

 

[Mokele]

Except for the detail in the first definition you could argue that Darwinism is indeed a religion. It is a set of beliefs that scientist practice in explaining how our world and the universe works, and it is definitely agreed on by a large number of people. So if you stuck solely to the definition of religion you could say that darwinism is a religion. The definition says nothing of spirituality, that is just something that has been associated with religion. But people generally don't think of Darwinism as a religion. I was pointing out that the author if he had chosen to, could say Darwinism is a religion.

Wrong. Next stupid assertion.

Religion is based on faith, science is based on observation and experimentation. We have observed evolution, ergo it is science. And yes, we have *directly* observed evolution, including the origin of a new species from existing species.

Could it just be one of those urban legends? If anyone has a site to shed light on this please post, like I said I found this interesting.

It's called the "Lady Hope story", after the liar who started it. Yes, it is just an urban legend, or, more specifically, just one of the many blatant falsifications the creationist loons use to push there agenda.

Such as...

Maybe not the t-rex or the sort as it's not documented, but they've found cave drawings of dinosaurs.

No, they did not. This is false information.

ad a harder time doing that than finding something of value. Heck, they're a bunch of Harvard people.

No, they aren't. The document is clearly falsified, as there is absolutely no record of it in the scientific literature. Your source is a creationist website, and, as they are already proven to lie in order to sell their fairy tales, cannot be trusted.

The real is issue is whether He is the author of it all or not. I say He is and I don't care how He did things.

Precisely - if I throw a ball at you, physics dictates the path, but I'm responsible for the action itself. I took action, but acted within physical laws to do so.

Or, look at it this way - we're not gods, and we've invented machines to do our work for us. Do we really think god is so stupid he does everything manually, rather than setting up a system that will automatically do what he wants with only an invisible nudge every few million years?


Honestly, I've been watching the whole creationism thing for decades, and they have not only failed to come up with any convincing argument or real data, but even worse are just recycling the same tired and disproved tropes they used 150 years ago.

And, while I'm coming at things from a scientific perspective, don't think I wouldn't call BS if I saw it - I'm about to lay some serious smackdown on the entire field of primate locomotion because of flaws in some of the original papers. Puncturing existing theories is a great way to make a name in science, and it's a very competitive field. Do you seriously think that if there was some big secret, nobody would have tried to make their name by blowing the cover? If you do, you *clearly* have no idea how little cash a post-doc makes compared to faculty.

Seriously, creationism is an embarrassment to religion. It's crappy theology supported by made-up stories.

Mokele

 

[FarmerDave]

Except for the detail in the first definition you could argue that Darwinism is indeed a religion. It is a set of beliefs that scientist practice in explaining how our world and the universe works, and it is definitely agreed on by a large number of people. So if you stuck solely to the definition of religion you could say that darwinism is a religion. The definition says nothing of spirituality, that is just something that has been associated with religion. But people generally don't think of Darwinism as a religion. I was pointing out that the author if he had chosen to, could say Darwinism is a religion.

Wrong. Next stupid assertion.

Religion is based on faith, science is based on observation and experimentation. We have observed evolution, ergo it is science. And yes, we have *directly* observed evolution, including the origin of a new species from existing species.

Well I don't entirely believe that what you're saying is true.
Isn't religion a way of life?
So if you decide to live your life a certain way because of your beliefs then wouldn't you be living by your religion?
If one were to think of Darwinism as a religion then wouldn't that be their religion?
because even if you don't think of it as a religion it still is if there is at least one believer.
So, even if it is proven with scientific fact doesn't that mean that there is more sense into believing in that certain religion?

 

[JRFxtreme]

No, because I beleive the sun will rise tomorrow and thats not a religion. Its been observed and proven as a fact, just like evolution has been proven to occur.

 

[Mokele]

Isn't religion a way of life?

Not technically - that would be a culture or personal creed, which, while religion can influence or define it, can also exist independently of religion. For instance, I strongly doubt there's a religious reason for the cuisine of New Orleans, but having lived there, I can definitely say it's a way of life. Damn I miss Cafe du Monde.

If one were to think of Darwinism as a religion then wouldn't that be their religion?
because even if you don't think of it as a religion it still is if there is at least one believer.
So, even if it is proven with scientific fact doesn't that mean that there is more sense into believing in that certain religion?

By that logic, physics is a religion, since it defines the movement of the solar system and the perceived movement of the sun, leading to centuries of sun-worship. Such sun-worship was indeed a religion, but the sun's perceived movement is not, rather being the phenomenon from which the religion sprung.

Similarly, science is not a religion, nor is any part of it. If people were to religiously interpret certain aspects, it could be the source of one, but it itself could not be accurately classified as one.

Belief doesn't enter into science, only evidence.

Mokele

 

[Finch]

Wesley, cave drawings can be vauge and poorly drawn, leaving much open to interpretation. Like a child’s doodles. Because someone believes that that painting represents a dino does not mean it does.



"thats not a doggy. Its a PONY!!"

 

[herenorthere]

There's a lot of belief & faith in science too, but it's different. The world's astrophysicists can only have faith in the work of of molecular biologist and vice versa. What they really believe in is that the system will discard the false or unsupported on the way to the truth. It can be an ugly process, but it works pretty well. Except when the process is distorted for other ends. That's what I find so disturbing about creation "science" and intelligent design. They don't originate from data, they originate from dogma.

I can't remember the details, but the old USSR had an aversion to some basic aspect of evolution/biology because whatever it was didn't conform with Stalin's political ideas. So the nation's science & medicine were hobbled for years because of an ignorant politician's biases. If I remember correctly, that politics didn't extend into weapons research. Scientists working with biological weapons were free to follow the latest biological advances of the west. Stalin: our role model these days.

 

[Clint]

I totally disagree about religion being a way of life. I believe in God but you damn sure don't see me going to church or reading the bible or even praying out loud or waiting until marriage (even if I could) to screw around (haha). the only time I've been in a real church (excluding funeral homes) was for NA and they followed the same religious crap as they say they don't preach. Damned hypocrites is what they are. Those things are not me, and I'll be damned if I'm going to do anything because a hypocritical, ignorant, conservative Christian tells me I should. I don't buy into the BS that goes along with Christianity that says I have to do this this and this. I say screw them if they dare to tell me what I should do. I want to know what happened to the "Salt of the Earth" kind of Christian. These days it seems to be the "holier than thou" kind of Christian who only practices what they preach on Sunday (and damn, isn't the sabbath supposed to be on saturday? Duh!)

 

[Mokele]

There's a lot of belief & faith in science too, but it's different. The world's astrophysicists can only have faith in the work of of molecular biologist and vice versa.

Again, incorrect word choice - that would be trust, not faith. Faith in something is unwavering belief in something without any evidence, while I know that scientists in other fields rely on evidence and trust that those who know how to evaluate such data are doing so (and see the sometimes rather vicious fights in other fields as evidence). I don't have *faith* because I know they can screw up and not do things properly (as evidenced by the continued existence of String Theory), but I know that the ceaseless petty squabbling of academia...erm, I mean 'the noble pursuit of truth' will fix things in the end.

There's a reason science is so particular about words for things, and it's because we've long since learned that conflating terms can cause major problems and obscure the real issue.

Mokele

 

[herenorthere]

It's faith in a process instead of faith in a selection of ancient writings. You and I "know" (have an unwavering belief) that science can get to the truth in the end and I say that's faith, pure and simple. Faith is a powerful thing and let's not allow the holy rollers to have a monopoly on the word.

Jim Scott's last post reminds me of something my father said when I was learning geology; his God isn't some magician waving a magic wand to create something one day and something else the next. I don't see God when I look at the amazing complexity of life, the universe and everything, but my father sees God in plate tectonics, evolution, etc. and is annoyed when people can't accept reality because of their dogma. But a lot of scientists also couldn't accept such changes. Widespread acceptance sometimes must wait until the nonbelievers die off, because many can't believe after a lifetime spent thinking differently.

 

[Clint]

How do we make them die sooner? I mean Jesus Christ! Where's a great flood when ya need one?

 

[rubrarubra]

I read the article until I got to the part about true Christians. I have hardly met a Christian who did not think they were a true Christian. Everyone who hasn't already given up is somewhere on the path to enlightenment, and those who stop to look down give the rest a bad name. Personally I need a lot of faith to make up for what I don't know. I need to test my hypotheses one by one because no one's been kind enough to let me in on the whole truth.

Peter

 

[FarmerDave]

There's a lot of belief & faith in science too, but it's different. The world's astrophysicists can only have faith in the work of of molecular biologist and vice versa.

Again, incorrect word choice - that would be trust, not faith. Faith in something is unwavering belief in something without any evidence, while I know that scientists in other fields rely on evidence and trust that those who know how to evaluate such data are doing so (and see the sometimes rather vicious fights in other fields as evidence). I don't have *faith* because I know they can screw up and not do things properly (as evidenced by the continued existence of String Theory), but I know that the ceaseless petty squabbling of academia...erm, I mean 'the noble pursuit of truth' will fix things in the end.

There's a reason science is so particular about words for things, and it's because we've long since learned that conflating terms can cause major problems and obscure the real issue.

Mokele

but in saying that I have faith in evolution, and I am a Darwinist then that Is my religious belief.


Religion is made so that there are a bunch of grey areas so that no one can completely disprove it.

I totally disagree about religion being a way of life. I believe in God but you damn sure don't see me going to church or reading the bible or even praying out loud or waiting until marriage (even if I could) to screw around (haha). the only time I've been in a real church (excluding funeral homes) was for NA and they followed the same religious crap as they say they don't preach. Damned hypocrites is what they are. Those things are not me, and I'll be damned if I'm going to do anything because a hypocritical, ignorant, conservative Christian tells me I should. I don't buy into the BS that goes along with Christianity that says I have to do this this and this. I say screw them if they dare to tell me what I should do. I want to know what happened to the "Salt of the Earth" kind of Christian. These days it seems to be the "holier than thou" kind of Christian who only practices what they preach on Sunday (and damn, isn't the sabbath supposed to be on saturday? Duh!)

now why would you say that religion isn't a way of life?
if you're a 'true christian' then you would live your life without sinning, and if you did then you would repent. You would also do all of the other things. Such as if you were a Strict Jew or Arab. The people who are less strict with there religion such as yourself have a different way that they interpret their religion, but they still live by it. Such as you have previously stated in this and other threads.
I am an athiest or a darwinist, and i live my life by my religion, I believe in no heaven nor hell and I don't believe in sin.

 

[Finch]

'true christian'

I think no-one has the power or the business to tell anyone what constitutes a 'true christian', or a 'true' anything. Who are they to tell us what the "true" form or a religion is, because that inherently is a biased remark. Many people believe their version is the 'true' form but that doesn’t make it so

Thats not a just directed at you but a observation on terminology.

 

[Clint]

Dave, if I have faith in my mother that doesn't mean that I worship her or she's my religion.
As far as you saying If I were a "true christian" I would live my life without sinning, no, then I'd be Jesus. As far as repenting, this is where an individual interpretation of Christianity comes into play because what you think is a sin, I may or may not agree. Saying that i live my life by my religious beliefs implies, IMO, that I make all of my choices based on religion and that is not the case. That's what makes me secular and being secular so great. I can believe in God but it doesn't interfere with my every day life, my politics, etc. Look at... who's a famous person who's secular... John Stewart. Same deal.


As far as Darwinism being a religious belief... no. It's a scientific theory not a religious dogma. You don't worship Darwin. You don't believe that you will ascend into a higher plane based on your evolutional ideas. No, That's like saying quantum physics is a religious belief. You can be a Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. and still believe in Darwinism. It makes a hell of a lot more sense, to me at least, than God poofing all of the living beings into existence in one day. IMO, people thousands of years ago did not know about evolution, and they couldn't explain the diversity around them, so naturally, the easiest way to explain it for them would to say "God made it all in one day!" They couldn't explain how the sun, Earth, and moon were formed so their answer was "God made the Heavens and the earth in one day".

It's like when a child asks a parents why something is, and the parent doesn't know (even though there is a scientific explanation for it ) the parent simply says "It just does".