View Full Version : Atheists Are Getting Mighty Uppity! Reason Rally on Washington D.C. -- March 24
WASHINGTON, D.C. (CBSDC) – Thousands of atheists are expected to attend the Reason Rally next month in Washington, D.C., an event that organizers hope will unify a large part of the secular community.
On March 24, the National Mall will be populated by those who sympathize with atheist perspectives, generally defined by an absence in belief of deities or other religious icons.
The website for the event states that organizers aim to encourage participants to claim their identity as what they call “secular Americans,” to dispel stereotypes, and to rally for legislative equality.
David Silverman, a chair for the Reason Rally Coalition and president of American Atheists, said that participants are motivated by positivity.
“We’re not going there to complain, we’re not going there to fight,” he told CBSDC. “[We want to] celebrate the fact that we are growing, we are stronger, and we are taking our place in American society.”
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/02/17/we-are-stronger-atheists-to-hold-massive-rally-on-national-mall-next-month/
It's about time non-believers started organizing and making their voices heard in this country!
I'm so going to be there. Round-trip air tickets from here to D.C. can be found for only $400. My aunt/uncle have an apartment there in D.C. just 3 blocks from the Mall, so I wouldn't have to pay for a hotel. I haven't flown since 9/11 though, so I don't know what to expect. I figure I can fit everything to last me 4 days in one carry-on, depart Friday be back Monday in time for work.
Of course, it would be the perfect time for Muslim (or Christian, for that matter) terrorists to strike. All us godless heathens in one place, including Richard Dawkins himself.
Might as well die for something you believe in, though, eh?
:happydance:
[Might as well die for something you believe in, though, eh?
:happydance:
Wouldn't that be something akin to an oxymoron....yee who believe in nothing.
Wouldn't that be something akin to an oxymoron....yee who believe in nothing.
That's what I thought as well, at first.
But if you go to their web-site ( http://www.reasonrally.org ) you can see its actually a rally for Science, Reason, and Secularism, so there is positive belief there.
From what I gather, its not going to be so much anti-religion as much as it is going to promote awareness of the growing numbers of people who call themselves non-religious.
A rally for the rest of us, as it were.
They've got some great speakers and musicians lined up, sounds like it will be a blast.
I haven't visited the capital since I was young, and I was sick with the flu the entire time, so I didn't get to enjoy it very well.
But I'm kind of looking forward to going back and checking out the sites this time around.
was_peacemaker
02-18-2012, 04:44 PM
Richard Dawkins on religion is like Sara Brady on guns. Even people in his own field thought his book was a bit weak and all he was re-hashing were old arguments.
Richard Dawkins on religion is like Sara Brady on guns. Even people in his own field thought his book was a bit weak and all he was re-hashing were old arguments.
Well, it sounds like the rally is going to be more about the positive aspects of atheism -- promoting separation of church and state in politics, and promoting science education in general -- not so much the anti-religion part, as there are many atheists who aren't as hostile towards religion as others are.
Sounds like an upbeat gathering of like-minded folk, just making their voices heard, letting politicians know that people of faith aren't the only ones whose interests are at stake this coming election.
I just think its cool that we've reached a point where non-believers can rally en masse and have a real say in government as well. It will be interesting to see how many attend.
That's what I thought as well, at first.
round.
Yes, but would you die for your science?
Yes, but would you die for your science?
Nah, and that's kind of one of the good things about atheism -- it kinds of hard to get too fanatical about it, at least not to the point where you want to strap on a suicide vest or go off on a crusade against believers or something.
Better to just use peaceful words and reason to convince and convert people to your cause, even if it takes longer than doing it by the sword. :)
greeenie
02-18-2012, 08:25 PM
Were I more financially secure id be in. Praise science!
Nah, and that's kind of one of the good things about atheism -- it kinds of hard to get too fanatical about it, at least not to the point where you want to strap on a suicide vest or go off on a crusade against believers or something.
Better to just use peaceful words and reason to convince and convert people to your cause, even if it takes longer than doing it by the sword. :)
Yeah, but when you mix marxism and athiesm together, you get your orders to go after the believers, as they won't bow to the will of the state; so they must be forced. We've seen that just in the last few days.
Yeah, but when you mix marxism and athiesm together, you get your orders to go after the believers, as they won't bow to the will of the state; so they must be forced. We've seen that just in the last few days.
Well, that has a lot more to do with Communism (with a capital 'C') than it does with atheism. Most atheists don't want to see us return to those dark days of the Soviet Union, and don't agree with their methods or their gulags.
(The president of American Atheists is a Republican, by the way.)
And you're a marxist like Lenin and Stalin......
And you're a marxist like Lenin and Stalin......
I freely confess to agreeing with many of Marx's core ideas and concepts, but not the application of them like Lenin and Mao did.
As I've said before, Marx said time and time again that socialism could only truly develop once capitalism has run its full course. It was never meant to be applied to backwards, pre-Industrial, agrarian economies like Russia or China, only fully developed economies like those of the West.
I think northern Europe kind of has it right balance with their particular form of democratic socialism... nationalize the energy, banking, and health care sectors, let the free market handle most everything else.
Until we figure out how to make replicators like in Star Trek -- then we can go full-bore communism with free goods for all. :)
Yes, socialism can only loot economies that have produced things. And when they are thru looting, the slaves are starved to death.
raxar
02-18-2012, 09:41 PM
They've got some great speakers and musicians lined up, sounds like it will be a blast.
Yes, I heard about this a month or so ago.
So the atheists are going to have a large gathering, with atheist speakers, and atheist bands, and then have break out sessions to discuss atheism.
to prove how much smarter you are than those church going idiots who gather for christian speakers, christian bands, and break out sessions to discuss christianity.
Two giant points here
1. You clearly are demonstrating that you're "lack of religion" is a religion
2. WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANY ATHEIST WASTE THEIR TIME DOING THIS? For fucks sake this has got to be one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. What is the point of this? You're all a bunch of naked apes feverishly racing to oblivion so you gather together to discuss how much you don't believe in things? I can't even begin to describe the lunacy in this.
Dafapa
02-18-2012, 10:32 PM
Our local communist makes a thread about a "reason rally", and then this gem pops up:
Better to just use peaceful words and reason to convince and convert people to your cause, even if it takes longer than doing it by the sword. :)
Talk about irony.
alismith
02-18-2012, 11:29 PM
Events like this give atheists, everywhere, a bad name. However, many athesits deserve the bad name they get.
greeenie
02-18-2012, 11:34 PM
Finally the intellectuals can be heard over the sheep.... free thinking may finally b a reality for ppl with a brain
raxar
02-18-2012, 11:37 PM
Finally the intellectuals can be heard over the sheep.... free thinking may finally b a reality for ppl with a brain
So free thinking that they surround themselves with people who think exactly like they do to have a rally to express how much more free thinking they are then everyone they disagree with.
greeenie
02-18-2012, 11:42 PM
Sounds just like how change happens, to ppl who.don't like change, or intelligence from outside of their own blind faith
AK-47
02-19-2012, 12:16 AM
Science is a religon based on the creed of Darwinism & is a complacent theory for the unknown! Stupid People are Happy People!!!
raxar
02-19-2012, 12:40 AM
Sounds just like how change happens, to ppl who.don't like change, or intelligence from outside of their own blind faith
The irony in your statement is delicious. The atheists have a rally with nothing but atheism being preached to show how open minded and free thinking they are?
alismith
02-19-2012, 02:24 AM
Science is a religon based on the creed of Darwinism & is a complacent theory for the unknown! Stupid People are Happy People!!!
Science was around long before Darwin. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is just that; a theory. It will remain a theory until it can either be proven, or disproven. Darwin was but one of thousands of scientists and will remain so.
You can argue that belief in science is a religion, and in some cases you might be right, but, science is based on evidence and proof. What most people ignore is that the very nature of science is based on skepticism. If a scientist publishes a finding and claims it is a fact, scientists all over the world do their best to disprove those findings. Only when it has been tested over and over, and found to be accurate, do other scientists accept it.
Religion does not do this, nor would it stand up to such scrutiny. That's ok, because the very nature of religion is based on faith. You either believe it or you don't.
Science is based on evidence and fact. You can either believe those facts, or not. Theories are based on evidence, but, so far, can't be proven or disproven. Again, you can believe it or not.
Just because Darwin proposed a theory based on observation does not mean his theory is false. By the very nature of the time involved for evolution to work, it is likely that it will never be proven as 100% true. However, it does synthesize the evidence he, and other scientists, have found in the fossil record. Maybe, someday, someone will come along with a better theory, or different evidence, and disprove his findings, but I really doubt it will be someone who bases his work strictly on religious beliefs, such as those who created The Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum
Gun Toting Lefty
02-19-2012, 02:38 AM
Science was around long before Darwin. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is just that; a theory. It will remain a theory until it can either be proven, or disproven. Darwin was but one of thousands of scientists and will remain so.
evolution is a proven fact. just look up "observed cases of speciation" in google. besides, even if evolution was "only a theory" you have to remember thas gravity is also "only a theory".
l921428x
02-19-2012, 04:47 AM
Science may be what it is, but in todays world Evolution is a fact, Global warming is a fact and any other theory that suits the left is a FACT. Disprove it if you can, but you cannot because the media shouts down all that disagree, you damn deniers, flat earthers, .............
Gun Toting Lefty
02-19-2012, 05:31 AM
Disprove it if you can, but you cannot because the media shouts down all that disagree, you damn deniers, flat earthers, .............
the scientific process is independent of the media. even if every news outlet in the world said that evolution (or any other theory for that matter) was a lie, scientists would still arrive at the same conclusion.
Back to the topic, and the little marxist' post. It isn't the fact that he's an athiest; on that I could care less. It's that he condems Christians for standing up for what they believe and talking about it, and then waste all this band space doing the same thing. Either shut up about Christians doing what he is doing, or do what he is doing and leave the Christians out of it.
As for the gun toting lefty in Great Britain....please, you probably no more own a gun in the socialist country you live in than I own an Abrahams tank. And as for theories and applying theories to God. Athiest can no more prove that God doesn't exist than Christians can prove He does. Christians believe; athiest disbelieve...nothing more. No facts either way.
was_peacemaker
02-19-2012, 08:53 AM
Evolution is factual in some cases yes... but even elites in the field like Nile Etheridge have noted that there are many aspects of the fossil record that don't back up some of Darwin's theory. Also Richard Dawkins has said that he doubts life just spontaneously happened here. He leans more into the idea that extra-terrestrials may have engineered life on this planet.
It is also interesting to note that the Genesis story read in Hebrew is way more metaphoric than literal. Even the Jews 1500-1700 years ago in the Talmud didn't read it as literal. The practice of reading it like that comes from the Protestant reformation.
That is also why you see many God fearing Bible believing Jews who excel in various fields of science. Because their understanding and reading of Genesis doesn't come into conflict with their understanding of the scientific method. I think if a lot of the hardcore literalist did learn to read it that way in the USA....then this conflict between Creationism and Evolution wouldn't be a factor.
alismith
02-19-2012, 09:31 AM
evolution is a proven fact. just look up "observed cases of speciation" in google. besides, even if evolution was "only a theory" you have to remember thas gravity is also "only a theory".
No, it may be stated as fact and treated as fact, but it is still a theory. It has not be quantitatively proven, however, it has been observed again, and again, to fit the parameters laid out by Darwin. Due to the time invovled in Darwain's theory, humans have not been around long enough to see it occur. It cannot be tested in a laboratory. It can only be observed over time and not enough time has passed to show it to be the "true" mechanism of how life changes over time. Fossils seem to support his observations, as do microscopic organisms, but still, there is not enough emperical data to "prove" beyond a shadow of a doubt that it works.
That's why Darwin was loathe to publish his findings. He couldn't prove what he was saying and knew it would fly in the face of contemporary religious beliefs (which it did). However, since he couldn't prove it, he published it as a theory, which was the right thing to do. Since then, many scientists, and non-scientists, have tried to prove him wrong, but they ran into the same problem Darwin did; the time element involved to prove it or disprove it.
It, very probably, is true because so far, all the evidence seems to support it, but to call it a "fact" is wrong. It is not a proven fact. It is hypothesized as a fact, but it is still a theory.
The only reason it is still around, today, is that so far, it seems to be the best explanation of how Nature works to produce new species. The only way to prove, or disprove, it as a fact is for humans to actually see one species evolve into a totally different species and observe the processes involved in bringing about that change.
was_peacemaker
02-19-2012, 09:53 AM
No, it may be stated as fact and treated as fact, but it is still a theory. It has not be quantitatively proven, however, it has been observered again, and again, to fit the parameters laid out by Darwin. Due to the time invovled in Darwain's theory, humans have not been around long enough to see it occur. It cannot be tested in a laboratory. It can only be observed over time and not enough time has passed to show it to be the "true" mechanism of how life changes over time. Fossils seem to support his observations, as do microscopic organisms, but still, there is not enough emperical data to "prove" beyond a shadow of a doubt that it works.
That's why Darwin was loathe to publish his findings. He couldn't prove what he was saying and knew it would fly in the face of contemporary religious beliefs (which it did). However, since he couldn't prove it, he published it as a theory, which was the right thing to do. Since then, many scientists, and non-scientists, have tried to prove him wrong, but they ran into the same problem Darwin did; the time element involved to prove it or disprove it.
It, very probably, is true because so far, all the evidence seems to support it, but to call it a "fact" is wrong. It is not a proven fact. It is hypothesized as a fact, but it is still a theory.
The only reason it is still around, today, is that so far, it seems to be the best explanation of how Nature works to produce new species. The only way to prove, or disprove, it as a fact is for humans to actually see one species evolve into a totally different species and observe the processes involved in bringing about that change.
True and also remember Evolution has more to do with Natural Selection than it does with the origins of life.
Goodman
02-19-2012, 10:08 AM
the scientific process is independent of the media.
It may be, but the media co-opts scientific subject matter and turns it into issues of faith under the guise of science.
No, it may be stated as fact and treated as fact, but it is still a theory. It has not be quantitatively proven, however, it has been observered .......
Much like anthropogenic global climate change. Some say 'The science is settled' but no one as yet has produced a control model as required in the scientific method. By definition there is no science to the subject.
To the OP: there is no proof either way on either side of the argument. Further, there may be overlap as in intelligent design. "Evangelistic atheists" are IMO pretty amusing as they are exactly what they battle against- professing one point of view while emotionally secure in their opinion.....yet without proof of their position. Atheism IS faith based.
"Evangelistic atheists" are IMO pretty amusing as they are exactly what they battle against- professing one point of view while emotionally secure in their opinion.....
I kind of like outspoken "evangelical" atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. I think they move the political debate to the left, and make tolerance for all religion (or lack thereof) more of a moderate position, instead of it being bat-shit crazy fundamentalists on one extreme and reasonable tolerance on the other.
Let the militant atheists and extreme fundies duke it out in the public arena, and hopefully some reasonable middle-ground will prevail. ;)
was_peacemaker
02-19-2012, 01:06 PM
I kind of like outspoken "evangelical" atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. I think they move the political debate to the left, and make tolerance for all religion (or lack thereof) more of a moderate position, instead of it being bat-shit crazy fundamentalists on one extreme and reasonable tolerance on the other.
Let the militant atheists and extreme fundies duke it out in the public arena, and hopefully some reasonable middle-ground will prevail. ;)
Dawkins is not reasonable. He has even stated that his goal is to destroy religion.
Goodman
02-19-2012, 01:14 PM
I kind of like outspoken "evangelical" atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. I think they move the political debate to the left, and make tolerance for all religion (or lack thereof) more of a moderate position, instead of it being bat-shit crazy fundamentalists on one extreme and reasonable tolerance on the other.
Let the militant atheists and extreme fundies duke it out in the public arena, and hopefully some reasonable middle-ground will prevail. ;)
I'm inclined to think extremists polarize as much as anything, but do agree with your sentiment about middle ground. Atheists are entitled to their opinion-even if it is wrong :lol:
Dawkins is not reasonable. He has even stated that his goal is to destroy religion.
I don't think he's ever said that, has he?
I know he's said that religion should be confronted and "highly ridiculed", especially when it tries to butt its head into science education curriculum (Creationism, "Intelligent Design", etc.) ...
But I think he'd be perfectly happy if most churches were just turned into museums, no need to eradicate them, just keep them around for their historical value and all, so that future generations can look back with wonder and awe at our primitive superstitions. :)
raxar
02-19-2012, 01:35 PM
I don't think he's ever said that, has he?
I know he's said that religion should be confronted and "highly ridiculed", especially when it tries to butt its head into science education curriculum (Creationism, "Intelligent Design", etc.) ...
But I think he'd be perfectly happy if most churches were just turned into museums, no need to eradicate them, just keep them around for their historical value and all, so that future generations can look back with wonder and awe at our primitive superstitions. :)
he's called it a "virus in the software of the mind" hasn't he?
was_peacemaker
02-19-2012, 01:48 PM
I don't think he's ever said that, has he?
I know he's said that religion should be confronted and "highly ridiculed", especially when it tries to butt its head into science education curriculum (Creationism, "Intelligent Design", etc.) ...
But I think he'd be perfectly happy if most churches were just turned into museums, no need to eradicate them, just keep them around for their historical value and all, so that future generations can look back with wonder and awe at our primitive superstitions. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJPdPR1z-n0
Richard Dawkins talking about religion is no different than a Nazi talking about other races. Its still hate anyway you drawn it.
he's called it a "virus in the software of the mind" hasn't he?
I think the word he used in his book was "meme" ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meme ) or "memeplex." ( http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Memeplex )
But yeah, I mean its really no secret, religion does kind of spread like a virus. It's not like kids are born Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. Religion is a learned behavior, it has to be taught in order for people to believe in it. There's a reason most kids in Muslim countries grow up to be Muslims themselves. It doesn't have anything to do with truth, but only tradition and indoctrination.
I'm not sure what's so radical about that particular observation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJPdPR1z-n0
Richard Dawkins talking about religion is no different than a Nazi talking about other races. Its still hate anyway you drawn it.
Well, taking a few quotes out of context is pretty silly.
In that Ben Stein interview, Dawkins freely admits like he does in his book that life on this planet may indeed have been "seeded" by a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the cosmos. But the point is, THAT life must have evolved from more primitive sources as well. Evolution proves that simple life forms become more complex over time. You don't start with high complexity (God) and get less complex over time, that goes against everything we've observed about nature so far.
was_peacemaker
02-19-2012, 02:04 PM
I think the word he used in his book was "meme" ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meme ) or "memeplex." ( http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Memeplex )
But yeah, I mean its really no secret, religion does kind of spread like a virus. It's not like kids are born Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. Religion is a learned behavior, it has to be taught in order for people to believe in it.
I'm not sure what's so radical about that particular observation.
Spread like viruses? And godless communism didn't? The New Atheist movement has this arrogance that if you don't believe like them...then your not fit for the future progressive society. That is the same mentality atheists like Stalin, Mao, and Lenin had. We see how that worked out.
People have the right to read Holy Books and make their own choices. In many places in the world people are born Hindu, Buddhist, or something else and choose to convert to a Abrahamic religion. What is amazing is that the Jews were always a little minority in the ancient near east, and Judaism is historically a religion that does not proselytize.
Spread like viruses? And godless communism didn't?
Are you admitting that religion is no different than a man-made political ideology?
People have the right to read Holy Books and make their own choices. In many places in the world people are born Hindu, Buddhist, or something else and choose to convert to a Abrahamic religion. What is amazing is that the Jews were always a little minority in the ancient near east, and Judaism is historically a religion that does not proselytize.
And nobody is saying people don't have the right to make their own choices. Of course they do. Religion folks lose their faith and become atheists all the time and vice versa. But the common denominator is that people have to be exposed to certain ideas in the first place in order for them to possibly stick. You just have a much higher chance of someone being born in a dominant society of adopting the same beliefs as that society, as those are the ideas they are constantly exposed to from a young age.
was_peacemaker
02-19-2012, 03:25 PM
Are you admitting that religion is no different than a man-made political ideology?
Nope what I am saying in a nutshell is that Communism is the worst thing to ever happen. Anyone who is a Marx fan should be cautious on calling religion or another belief a virus.
El Laton Caliente
02-19-2012, 03:40 PM
Science was around long before Darwin. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is just that; a theory. It will remain a theory until it can either be proven, or disproven. Darwin was but one of thousands of scientists and will remain so.
You can argue that belief in science is a religion, and in some cases you might be right, but, science is based on evidence and proof. What most people ignore is that the very nature of science is based on skepticism. If a scientist publishes a finding and claims it is a fact, scientists all over the world do their best to disprove those findings. Only when it has been tested over and over, and found to be accurate, do other scientists accept it.
Religion does not do this, nor would it stand up to such scrutiny. That's ok, because the very nature of religion is based on faith. You either believe it or you don't.
Science is based on evidence and fact. You can either believe those facts, or not. Theories are based on evidence, but, so far, can't be proven or disproven. Again, you can believe it or not.
Just because Darwin proposed a theory based on observation does not mean his theory is false. By the very nature of the time involved for evolution to work, it is likely that it will never be proven as 100% true. However, it does synthesize the evidence he, and other scientists, have found in the fossil record. Maybe, someday, someone will come along with a better theory, or different evidence, and disprove his findings, but I really doubt it will be someone who bases his work strictly on religious beliefs, such as those who created The Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum
You are making the same mistake the AGW crowd does. In science, you form a hypothesis, you test or gather evidence to support your hypothesis then have your findings peer reviewed. If your peers cannot disprove your hypothesis it becomes a theory until someone can disprove it. Nothing in science is ever above a theory because it is never settled and only stands until a more thorough understanding comes along.
Theory has a very different meaning in science as it requires proof.
alismith
02-19-2012, 04:47 PM
You are making the same mistake the AGW crowd does. In science, you form a hypothesis, you test or gather evidence to support your hypothesis then have your findings peer reviewed. If your peers cannot disprove your hypothesis it becomes a theory until someone can disprove it. Nothing in science is ever above a theory because it is never settled and only stands until a more thorough understanding comes along.
Theory has a very different meaning in science as it requires proof.
I agree with most of this, but I disagree about "nothing in science is ever above a theory...". There are Newton's 3 Laws of Motion (not 3 Theories of Motion). Not only has no one been able to disprove them, but he used mathematics to explain how they work. Neither scientists, nor mathmeticians, have been able to show them differently than he stated. They have always worked and will always continue to work. Now, you can say that one day someone may show differently, but if that happens, then his laws will be replaced by a new set of laws. If you say this is what you mean, then you are arguing semantics and you would be right in that sense, but not in the blanket statement that all scientific "laws" are nothing more than "theories."
If nothing were resolute (as in the meaning of the term, natural law), then science would be nothing more than superstition and alchemy, and humans would still be living in caves, eating raw meat and hoping for lightning to strike a tree so they could have a fire.
He observed the natural world around him, hypothesized the causes of the observed events, then set about to explain his hyptoheses using demonstrable situations, and mathmetics. He, even, invented calculus, to show how they worked. Now, near black holes, some of his findings break down, but that doesn't mean his findings are probably false. They, unerringly, work in the non-black hole environment, in which we live.
It is a law that an object (inanimate) will never move of it's own volition unless an outside force is applied to it. You can test this all you want and it will always do the same thing. That's science and that's a law. Newton may not have been the first to observe this, but he was the first to write it down and back it up with scientific methods and math.
There are scientific laws and there are scientific theories. Both are useful to those who understand them.
greeenie
02-19-2012, 04:51 PM
it was once a proven "fact" that all the planets revolved around the earth, and that the earth was flat.... to those of you who are comparing atheism to religion, when have atheists gone to underdeveloped countries, or third world countries, and promised them "savior" or offered them eternal bliss, if they covert to ahteism? I know not of any examples... Secondarily, what has started more wars, religion or atheism? and to that end, who has the correct "god", buddhists, muslims, christians? the fact remains that a majority of religion is cultist, promising things that cannot ever be
and correct me if im wrong, but hasnt the catholic church adopted evolution as a creation of god?
and correct me if im wrong, but hasnt the catholic church adopted evolution as a creation of god?
The current official Catholic stance is that evolution is true, BUT the process is guided by God. While its cool that church is finally beginning to wake up and acknowledge science, it still has a long way to go, as evolution does not require any sort of supernatural power to explain itself. It's a completely natural process, that's been taking place long before the Church ever became an idea in some Iron Age primitive's mind.
greeenie
02-19-2012, 05:51 PM
Sad it too them this long to.come up with that huh?
Sad it too them this long to.come up with that huh?
I think all religions are slowly being dragged into the 21st Century.
Even Islam will eventually be forced to liberalize and secularize. The longer they see the rest of the world get all the fun toys to play with, the things that science has made possible, the more they will want to tone down the superstition and join the club.
greeenie
02-19-2012, 05:56 PM
Hopefully, but I personally hope it is too little, too late
was_peacemaker
02-19-2012, 06:48 PM
The current official Catholic stance is that evolution is true, BUT the process is guided by God. While its cool that church is finally beginning to wake up and acknowledge science, it still has a long way to go, as evolution does not require any sort of supernatural power to explain itself. It's a completely natural process, that's been taking place long before the Church ever became an idea in some Iron Age primitive's mind.
Actually evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the first self replicating cell and therefore it doesn't dismiss supernatural involvement. Even Richard Dawkins has said as much that nobody knows how life started on this planet. He toys around with the idea of aliens. I believe in God, and he believes in aliens.
greeenie
02-19-2012, 06:50 PM
Actually evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the first self replicating cell and therefore it doesn't dismiss supernatural involvement. Even Richard Dawkins has said as much that nobody knows how life started on this planet. He toys around with the idea of aliens. I believe in God, and he believes in aliens.
Funny, there is about the same amount of proof of either existing lmao
Funny, there is about the same amount of proof of either existing lmao
It's even funnier that there is less proof that they don't exist. So what.
greeenie
02-19-2012, 08:13 PM
lol, somehow i think im the only one laughing but thats fine, i love everyone, not those a book tell me to or not to
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.