« Haven't seen a lot of Nutjobs pick up on this one | Main | Someone Better Do Something »

December 30, 2005

Comments

Felix_the_Mac

The FSM was revealed to me just before christmas and I was inspired. I described His Noodly Appendage to my extended family just before going to Christmas service. (With a Catholic who has recently converted to Islam! But thats another story...)

First, I would say that I went to the service as a cultural event rather than a religious one.

This maybe important since the FSM idea does not allow for the fact that, as well as a belief system, an entire culture is being attacked.

It is one thing to be persuaded that maybe the universe was divenly created at the big bang (as I believe the vatican allows). But to be asked to give up your entire culture and belief system simultaneously, and admit that there is no creator, is too large a step.

Secondly, the FSM falls into the same trap that ID/creationism does, since the illustrations show the _world_ being created rather than a scenario which allows for the reality of evolution and cosmology.

So I would say that the FSM is good satire and I appreciate it, but that I hope that all those scientists who wrote to express their appreciation have also given support in other, more mainstream, ways.


jeff white

You seem to be taking the position of the liberal churches that Christianity and evolution are compatible beliefs. In that case, answer this question (to which I've never received an honest answer from any so-called Christian): Did the australopithecine ape-men have souls?
The reason every Christian will be evasive or duplicitous when faced with this question is obvious. If he says yes, then everything down to viruses also must have souls, which makes no sense & in any case is pantheism, not Christianity. If he says no, then at some point there was a father without a soul who had a son with a soul -- which also makes no sense.
Hence, no thinking, honest person can be a Christian.
Felix says people don't want to give up their belief in a "creator." Well, fine -- that belief is so vague as to be meaningless. (As Bertrand Russell pointed out, if you think the universe must have had a creator, then who created the creator?) But they have to give up belief in the specific doctrines of Christianity. It's dishonest to blur the huge gap between those doctrines and a vague belief in a creator.

Chuck

jeff,

I'm not christian, but I have a response.

Christianity is a religion that believes that two-thousand years ago a virgin that herself was born without original sin gave birth to the son of God, who died for our sins and was resurrected. If you accept that son as your savior, you will spend eternity in heavenly bliss.

Once one believes a doctrine like that, I don't see why it would be a stretch to believe that one day God decided it was time for man to have a soul, and gave souls to either all living humans, or all newly born humans from then on.

If God gave souls to all living humans at once, then you don't have the issue of parents with no souls baring children with souls. Everyone got souls at the same time, and from then on their children had souls.

Hell, you could even say God gave humans souls ten thousand years ago, and use that as explanation of where that estimated age of the Earth comes from -- on the theory that humans getting souls represented the last stage of creation.

That's the great thing (and the danger) of believing in supernatural forces, anything seems possible/reasonable. See, I'm not even a Christian and in five minutes I could come up with a response to your question that is at least consistent with my (albeit limited) understanding of Christian theology.

barbara k

as a 20 year old student of medicine i consider myself both too old and too young to belive in undefined things, or have much of a need to do so anyways (except those things that bring me good grades on exams). think of it what you will. also, i live in croatia (that would be one of the ex-yugoslavian countries), yes, a post-communistic, but none the less a highly cristian oriented country. during my primary school education i had both extensive teaching in religion as well as in primary sciences. i have learned of several theories of evolution and creation and that at different (young) ages, and never once found myself confused or having to choose which theory to believe in public. what my question is, and what is the only thing that always bewildered me is why does this problem of evolution seem to be such a complicated topic in the united states (a country considered to be far more scientificaly advanced than croatia, and far less religiously bigoted)? is it really that important that everybody should think the same, no matter whether it is creed or hard evidence? and in a free society shouldn't you be allowed to choose what you think/belive, simply because that's what ''free society means'', even if you're just a kid?
(excuse my lazy capitals, please)

John

Well, what they are trying to do is put the theory of intelligent design into school systems with evolution, so that the kids have the choice. Right now, evolution is the only thing being taught. I am a Christian, by the way, but I do not push for intelligent design to be put into school. I would rather have evolution be taken out, since it has been disproven time and time again, and I'm tired of correcting people's minds that were corrupted with the idea. If I, a 17 year old, can convince other people beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution doesn't exist (and I haven't just corrected people my age, but of all ages), then how can anyone be gullible enough to believe.
I would like to point out a few things that bug me. First of all, we have never seen or figured out any form of macroevolution, or as in two organisms of the same species making something of a completely different order. I do admit that two animals of the same species can make different animals, but they are always of the same kind. If we have 2 dogs mate, we won't get a parakeet. We may get a doberman or a pincher, but it's always going to be a dog!
Second, I hate the geological column. This was made purely out of speculation, and the person who made it existed in a time before any types of dating, so the numbers that he gave were totally made up! Kind of like the trilobytes are in the bottom part, which is 500,000+ years old, yet recently people found a trilobyte that had clearly been killed by a person, since it had a shoeprint, and if it were 500,000+ years old, it would be rock, so no shoeprint would show! Also, there are only 24 places in the entire world where you can find 3 or more parts of the column in the correct order! Seems kinda fishy to me. Also, if you check out how archeologists date the bones they find, they do it by column (they don't actually use the dating, but use the soil to estimate), and even worse, they estimate the age of soil by the fossils they find in it! Circular reasoning anyone?
Finally, I would like to divert your attention to the grand canyon. The grand canyon was supposedly made by the colorado river over millions of years, but I see two problems. First, if you look at where the colorado had to start cutting into the rock, there was a sudden 2500 foot change upwards in elevation! Can someone tell me how a river as small as the colorado could make it up there? Last I checked, water didn't go uphill (yay gravity!). Second, there is no delta! If the colorado river had done it, then there would surely be a depository for all that rock. This points to the fact that it must have been a lot of water cutting the ground and shoving the soil deep into the ocean. If you look once again at the 2500 foot elevation change, there is sand for a good portion around the top, which suggests some large body of water right there, so there must have been a 'large flooding' of the body of water that made the grand canyon.
Thanks for reading and please forgive me for any spelling errors :)

Ardelean Vlad

When I look at evolution vs creation i do see people fighting for their own mental stability and nothing more. The truth is that even if at the moment evolution does not have all the freaking evidence of what actually happened (and it never will because that means mapping every movement of every atom in the whole universe) one day religion and science should hypothetically get to the same conclusion because WE LIVE IN THE SAME UNIVERSE! Science is not trying to say GOD does not exist, it's just studying the truth. Many times in history both science and religion were wrong so why doesn't anyone learn anything from this? If both religion and science would cooperate we would be closer to the truth by now
For religious people who support creation theory: to support this you first have to ask yourself, "what do we really know about God and what he did?" because if some kind of GOD exists he may be a lot smarter that you all and i do not think that you could ever say that you know what he thinks or what he wants. So basically if you want to get closer to the truth your way, do what Jesus did and you will eventually see the truth.Proof and Evidence is not what you should seek because neither did Jesus seek any. Love and understanding should be your weapons. Religion doesn't have anything to do with what Jesus actually came here to do, remember that and be SPIRITUAL!!!!

For the rational minds: patience and tolerance will do the trick. the way of science will eventually lead to the truth which most likely will differ from what we know till this day.

That is basically what i think. And I really hope this will stop some arguments between science and religion.They both are what they are and do what they should do. Trying to say one or another is wrong is more or less a waste of time, they should realize it by themselves.

ClubPenguin

If he says yes, then everything down to viruses also must have souls, which makes no sense & in any case is pantheism, not Christianity.

synthol

i love www.locusmedius.com !!
synthol freaks

Polo Outlet

Very, very nicely done!

Leah

Dave: My blogging aduntevre has just begun, and I thought it was fitting to announce on my latest B&C review. To avoid the perception of an asymmetrical friendship, you should know that I've visited The Redemptive Angle in the last few days. I particularly enjoyed the tender and honest reflection on fatherhood and the clear analysis of President Obama's recent remarks on Christianity. In that same backyard town hall, he repeated his mantra about religious pluralism: This is a country that is still predominantly Christian. But we have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and that their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own. The language – their own path to grace – suggests that every path is just as good, just as true, and just as beautiful as another. (By the way, your blog inspired me to add a Current Reading widget to my own.)

Iasonas

I do not think you have this right, nor you understand the point of Pastafarianism. That is not a plebrom. Lots of people donb4t. I would have thought that, since you are deemed to be an expert on this topic, you would have a better understanding. I think that us people have opened our mind to reality and here we are ( real faith although theoretically possible sounds almost contradictory) Would you dare do the same? Or too risky for you?

Thais

Ma va e8 mia sta foto? Non la ricordavo, sul serio! Oggi sono aandta a fare un po' di foto in giro, mi sta tornando la voglia di aggiornare un po' i miei album.Ti/Vi voglio bene,SimoMaPS: Bello il nuovo layout!Baci♥

The comments to this entry are closed.