We need one, because not everything is a Current Event or Politics.



No excuse not to respond now, Livio.

So basically this is just a topic....

Oh no, is the SB smiley going to be spammed?

*hears cat being trapped in cupboard*

no what are you talking about?

Anyway my tangent was that I've been reading this book called Ten Theories of Human Nature, which examines ten different religions/cultures/perspectives and tries to present them in a rational, unbiased way that does justice to each theory and its believers. It's really interesting to see some of the different points of view.

One of the first arguments the book makes is that people have the tendency to judge each "theory of human nature" while using the theory that they currently hold. For example, you believe "religion hinders clear thinking", which means that you must not find much truth in religions. So if I were to present any religion (another viewpoint), you would probably judge it to be not true, because that's what your current viewpoint tells you. Essentially, it's unfair to judge a point of view without actually adopting that point of view. I'm not really trying to make a point here about you, I'm just saying that it's an interesting argument to think about.

Yah ive noticed that. Has anyone read the books freakanomics and/or super freakanomics?

I've heard of it, and it seems pretty cool.

Yes theyre pretty funny but still however they swear a few times though

I believe in science. So far, science and religion hasn't been able to find much in common. I'll continue to use evolution as an example: I believe in evolution, and there's scientific proof for evolution that I can understand and accept by logical thinking. Yes, some details are hard to explain, but it's possible (we were taught the 13 most common arguments against evolution in school two years ago and the proofs that counter those arguments, unfortunately I've forgotten those by now). Creationism, on the other hand, is easy to grasp but full of holes that I find hard to explain through rational thinking, and so far I've yet to hear any good explanation. One example would be fossils. Why would they be put into the ground, doing nothing but supplying proof against creationism? Also, what about DNA? I've heard creationists talk about how perfect the DNA string is, while we're in fact not even close to using half of it. There's a scientific, evolutionary explanation to that as well, but I have yet to hear a good one based on creationism.  

lol Isa doomed this topic to non-serious discussion with that title. But still, I'm gonna minus-karma-rate any more posts with that smiley since it's getting annoying

I changed the title to promote less srsbsns smilie use.

What was the title before?

I'm not sure many people believe in Creationism anymore, and those that do seem to be more interested in preserving a culture than they are in preserving what they think is truth.

But going back to my previous argument, your attacking the Creationist point of view by applying the rules that define your point of view. Again, I'm not making a larger point here, especially because you can't really remove yourself from a point of view.

But here's another interesting argument made by another one of my professors just a few hours ago during lecture: that out of the Enlightenment of the 18th century, that's when a new religion started to dominate thought, and that religion was science.

I'm catholic, so I can argue on both sides.

But just to say, our bible's explanation of creationism is that it took place in '7 days'
But the 7 days was meant to give parable-ness to it, so in reality, it could have been billions of years.

Plus, the title just sounds wrong.

We're not really getting anywhere by having this discussion.

But there's one thing I don't understand. Livio, you're religious, to be more precise a Christian, but you don't seem to support creationism. Isn't that what the whole Old Testament is built upon? If you're questioning that, why are you a Christian?

I too am Catholic. But I always thought that it was absurd to think that a "real" creation story even exists, because humans have been around for too long for us to have preserved such a story. Therefore, it should be treated as fiction, not literal truth.

Or both.

Why should it be treated as truth? Because you can't explain it any other way?

Who are you responding to Isa? Because I said fiction

Because all things are innocent until proven guilty

At least for belief stuff

The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world.

Your move.

Livio: I was talking to DBX, but there's post up there which you haven't given me a satisfactory answer to.

There's a lot of varied interpretations of religion, Isa. Not everyone is as biased or as hardcore as others. I think most are moderate, and open to different interpretations. I've always been taught that the Bible can be interpreted in so many different ways, so it shouldn't be taken so seriously. Plus, if God really does exist, you should be able to form your own opinions on the subject, using your own reason and experiences.

Whenever I see people passionately defending their religion, I tend to think that there's a bigger issue at hand, like they're trying to preserve a way of life, rather than trying to defend their point of views.

It would have rotted by the time it took it to create the world.

So things with at least a few points of sense. Sorry bout that

I agree with your second paragraph, but I'm not sure what you're heading at. What is Christianity to you then?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is divine, and doesn't rot. Besides, it went pretty quick for him to create the world anyway.