If evolution is true, life is a result of chance.

[Godless Capitalist]

Now for the New Testament we have over 20,000 copies written only 300 years after the events they describe. We also have a fragment (of John's Gospel I think)written only 60 years after the original. In the same way we can be sure that what was written has not been changed since the time the original was made and our earliest copy.

So you either believe that the New Testement was all made up or that it all actually happened.

Can you really believe that the apostles made the whole thing up?

I believe that there probably was someone named Jesus Christ, that he lived around 0-30 AD, and that he was executed. That's about it. Nobody knows the details, and certainly stories written down 300 yrs later are not a reliable source. This should be obvious from the contradictions among the various Gospels. There is certainly no proof of a resurrection, miracles, etc.

[RationalBiker]

I believe in Jesus as the Christ not through a blind leap of faith but through faith that is reasoned and considered:

Faith is faith is faith. Many christians, and I can see you fall into this group, make the mistake in thinking that they can try to "make a case" or establish some "proof" in their belief. If you can "prove" the existence of a god or that Jesus was a supernatural being, then you don't need faith. I have to respectfully disagree with you that if you believe in the supernatural omniscience and power of god and Jesus then yes, you ARE taking a BLIND LEAP OF FAITH that flies in the face of all known physics and science. The nature of your beliefs are such that you can believe anything you choose to without really having to prove them with evidence, because there is NO evidence to support mystical abilities of these other-worldly creatures.

You can just as easily choose to believe that a giant space goat coughed up the universe as there is just as much evidence of that.

VES

[RationalBiker]

I believe that there probably was someone named Jesus Christ, that he lived around 0-30 AD, and that he was executed. That's about it. Nobody knows the details, and certainly stories written down 300 yrs later are not a reliable source. This should be obvious from the contradictions among the various Gospels. There is certainly no proof of a resurrection, miracles, etc.

I just heard the other day, though I haven't personally done the research, that paper didn't even exist yet back in the time of the apostles. If this is true, one can imagine the inaccuracy of maintaining "records" by other means for 300-400 years until people could start writing "the word".

Even with all the media we have available today, history if sometimes recorded inaccurately.

VES

[Godless Capitalist]

Writing was invented long before 0 AD. Maybe not paper specifically, but there was certainly some form of writing at the time. Anyway, isn't that kind of beside the point? You can buy books filled with first-hand stories of UFO abductions; that doesn't mean they are true.

[y_feldblum]

People wrote on parchment.

[tommyedison]

Funny little story of the premises of creationism applied to a murder case

[DavidV]

I believe that there probably was someone named Jesus Christ, that he lived around 0-30 AD, and that he was executed. That's about it. Nobody knows the details, and certainly stories written down 300 yrs later are not a reliable source. This should be obvious from the contradictions among the various Gospels. There is certainly no proof of a resurrection, miracles, etc.

I have not read this thread at all, but just wanted to comment that there is actually good reason to think that a historical Jesus never existed – while a “Savior myth” was common to many groups and cultures, there are no first-hand accounts of Jesus outside the Bible.

Some quick Google hits:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...eally_live.html

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

In any case, the issue really isn’t that important, other than as a historical curiosity. (Unless you’re Christian, in which case facts and evidence are irrelevant anyway.)

[Selfish]

Childofgod, I think you are basically running into the old philosophical question of the 'prime mover'. Based on the law of causality, everything had to begin somewhere, but where did the first 'cause' come from. Theists answer 'God'. As an Objective Atheist, it makes more sense to me to simply think of it as a realm we can't explain yet, but will someday. Assuming we don't throw out progress for good old mysticism.

[Brent Rolfe]

– while a “Savior myth” was common to many groups and cultures....

Yes, and so is the myth of a virgin birth common to many eastern religions and could quite easily have made its way into the middle eastern johny-come- latelies.

[Godless Capitalist]

The whole "virgin" thing may have come about simply due to a mistranslation. The wording originally used in the Gospels refers to Mary just as a young woman, not necessarily a virgin.

Childofgod, I think you are basically running into the old philosophical question of the 'prime mover'. Based on the law of causality, everything had to begin somewhere, but where did the first 'cause' come from. Theists answer 'God'. As an Objective Atheist, it makes more sense to me to simply think of it as a realm we can't explain yet, but will someday. Assuming we don't throw out progress for good old mysticism.

Actually we can explain it already. Reality is primary. It has always existed and does not need to have a cause.

[Tom Rexton]

Childofgod, I think you are basically running into the old philosophical question of the 'prime mover'. Based on the law of causality, everything had to begin somewhere, but where did the first 'cause' come from. Theists answer 'God'. As an Objective Atheist, it makes more sense to me to simply think of it as a realm we can't explain yet, but will someday. Assuming we don't throw out progress for good old mysticism.

No, the law causality does NOT imply a first cause--only a primary cause (i.e., reality/existence). There is nothing beyond existence. All that exists exists, and there can be no cause of that--unless you wish to abandon the law of non-contradiction.

[Selfish]

I like that! ::Goes to thought crunch over it for a while::

[tommyedison]

This is bad, bad news.

How is one supposed to counter this?

Wisconsin Schools to teach Creationism as a legitimate SCIENTIFIC theory

[Godless Capitalist]

We counter it by promoting the correct ideas.

I should point out that the existence of public education creates somewhat of a problem. I am somewhat sympathetic to creationist parents who do not think they should be forced to pay taxes to pay for their kids to be taught things they think are incorrect. The only solution of course is to privatize education.

[Marc K.]

I am somewhat sympathetic to creationist parents who do not think they should be forced to pay taxes to pay for their kids to be taught things they think are incorrect. The only solution of course is to privatize education.

I completely agree that education must be privatized.

The persons here with whom you should truly empathize though, are the kids. Without force being applied, their parents would keep these kids ignorant.

What an incredible experiment in evolution this will be. Generations of creationists getting dumber and dumber, poorer and poorer. Evolution recognizers contributing advancements in every field of biology, expanding knowledge. Getting wealthier and wealthier. Until finally there are no creationists left via natural selection. How ironic.

[stephen_speicher]

This is bad, bad news.

How is one supposed to counter this?

Wisconsin Schools to teach Creationism as a legitimate SCIENTIFIC theory

I would not be overly concerned with things such as this. It is a small local school board (the 2000 census shows the village of Grantsburg to have a population of 1369 people living in 565 households, with twelve nearby Churches), and, as the article makes clear, the proposal seems to have generated a substantial outcry from several sources. It appears to be a religious effort in an extremely small and highly religious village to bring ""intelligent design" into the classroom. It will probably be handled on a local level and, if not, the State will probably get involved. Regardless, it is a minor little skirmish that is best countered by just presenting the facts.

[DavidOdden]

I would not be overly concerned with things such as this.

It will probably be handled on a local level and, if not, the State will probably get involved. Regardless, it is a minor little skirmish that is best countered by just presenting the facts.

A matter of more concern would be Ohio, where such nonsense will probably be mandated at the state level, where it will be against the law to present the facts. The problem is that Board of Education decisions are always mutable, and even after what seemed like success in stopping the godders from hijacking the science curriculum, a few months ago they somehow influenced the Board of Education into an "evolution is just a theory" type compromise. The camel has his nose in the state-run tent, and you can well imagine what a mess that is likely to lead to.

[stephen_speicher]

A matter of more concern would be Ohio, where such nonsense will probably be mandated at the state level, where it will be against the law to present the facts. The problem is that Board of Education decisions are always mutable, and even after what seemed like success in stopping the godders from hijacking the science curriculum, a few months ago they somehow influenced the Board of Education into an  "evolution is just a theory" type compromise. The camel has his nose in the state-run tent, and you can well imagine what a mess that is likely to lead to.

I am not aware of the circumstances you refer to in Ohio (and I am not particularly interested in the details) but at worst this just further highlights why education should be private and not made the province of government, on whatever level. Heck, if I were a devout Christian and really believed in creation I too would not want my child's mind cluttered with such pseudo-scientific nonsense as evolution.

[oldsalt]

I am always fascinated by those who claim that the universe could not have always existed, but that some undefined divinity is eternal. In what way does this satisfy their need to understand existence?

If the universe HAD to have been created, then why isn't the same said of God? Where did he come from? Was he created? If so, then who created God? And so on and so on and so on, in infinite regression.

You see, ChildofGod, this is why Objectivism begins with what we know, Existence Exists, not the illogical infinite regression of creation.

[BlackSabbath]

Evolution is ridiculous. If it is true then you are admitting that your entire life is a result of random chance. As objectivists how can you handle this? How can you think that your wonderful life is a result of chance? You degrade it and make it something common and crude. In my opinion the reason you do this is to avoid the concept of a creator. Evolution gives an explanation for creation that doesn't involve a creator - how ridiculous.

Name your terms.

If you are opposed to evolution then tell us what you are in favour.

And does God exist? If God exists, then what is God? Show why you believe God exists.

(I love that emoticon)

[Godless Capitalist]

The persons here with whom you should truly empathize though, are the kids. Without force being applied, their parents would keep these kids ignorant.

True; the kid are the ones who really lose out.

What an incredible experiment in evolution this will be. Generations of creationists getting dumber and dumber, poorer and poorer. Evolution recognizers contributing advancements in every field of biology, expanding knowledge. Getting wealthier and wealthier. Until finally there are no creationists left via natural selection. How ironic.

Unfortunately I don't see any signs of creationists being unable to reproduce, or even getting poorer.

[The Sailor]

Evolution is ridiculous. If it is true then you are admitting that your entire life is a result of random chance. As objectivists how can you handle this? How can you think that your wonderful life is a result of chance? You degrade it and make it something common and crude. In my opinion the reason you do this is to avoid the concept of a creator. Evolution gives an explanation for creation that doesn't involve a creator - how ridiculous.

I usually do not post, because I am not an Objectivist, nor am religious by nature, but I feel compelled to add to the discussion, for what it is worth!

Why must evolution and religious fantasy be mutually exclusive. For the sake of argument, is it not possible, if GOD does exist, that he or she chooses to begin life in the form stated in evolution. If your using the bible as your sole reference, this is not possible, but who is to say the bible, as viewed today is correct. It has been translated so many times over the years, from it's beginning, in a language, no body fully understands today. How do we know that maybe, as long has we are talking fantasy, that the bible was not the scientific book of the day, of all the known facts during that period of time. Science is not static, it is always evolving, has new facts are learned, I can't say the same for religion, any religion, they seem to remain static in thier belief. In this light Childofgod, your living your life, based on old science.

I believe science to be the search for GOD, I don't believe in GOD yet, because there is no proof, science will provide it, someday, one way or the other. Will not be in my life time, or your or your childrens, etc.. I don't believe Objectivist disbelieves in GOD so much as, they are just not concerned with the question, for the above reason. There is no proof of his existence. Evolution does have some proof, according to our current knowledge, but I do not see where it flatly refrets any possibility of GOD, it doesn't go back that far, it simply provides a plausible explaination for a brief period of time.

Just my opinion.

[DavidV]

Unfortunately I don't see any signs of creationists being unable to reproduce, or even getting poorer.

Only in the very long run, in the difference between secular and fundamentalist societies. Unfortunately, that won’t stop them from taking civilization down with them.

[Rearden]

I have not read this thread at all, but just wanted to comment that there is actually good reason to think that a historical Jesus never existed – while a “Savior myth” was common to many groups and cultures, there are no first-hand accounts of Jesus outside the Bible.

Some quick Google hits:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...eally_live.html

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

In any case, the issue really isn’t that important, other than as a historical curiosity.  (Unless you’re Christian, in which case facts and evidence are irrelevant anyway.)

Actually, I am reading two scholarly books on the subject of the Jesus Myth. They are "Deconstructing Jesus" by Dr Robert Price and the "Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy [Click here for the Jesus Mysteries website. Robert Price articles can be found here . I think these books provide enough evidence to show that the story of Jesus in the bible are simple plagarised works taken from other religions.

Ash

[MisterSwig]

I don't believe Objectivist disbelieves in GOD so much as, they are  just not concerned with the question, for the above reason.  There is no proof of his existence.  Evolution does have some proof, according to our current knowledge, but I do not see where it flatly refrets any possibility of GOD, it doesn't go back that far, it simply provides a plausible explaination for a brief period of time.

Just my opinion.

I am an Objectivist. I am very concerned with the question of "God." I have no belief in a "God." And if you provide a definition for what this "God" thing is that you specifically are talking about, then I will be more interested in your "opinion."

Is it not possible, if GOD does exist, that he or she chooses to begin life in the form stated in evolution.

I don't know. What is possible to your imaginary "GOD?" What kind of special powers does it have? Does it come with a supersuit and a cape?