“Creation”, the new film about Charles Darwin, unable to get distributor in the US

[beorhthelm]

What have fairy stories got to do with religion? And what has religion got to do with fairy stories?
[...]
By all means, reject religion. But don't dismiss it as 'fairy stories'. That's simplistic, prejudiced nonsense, no different from the simplistic nonsense that the creationists believe in.

Fairy tales of some authers such as the Brothers Grimm are considered respectable literature. so to consider the bible as a series of fairy tales is not simplistic or prejudical, just acknowledging them as fiction. maybe "folk lore" would be better to avoid the literal "fairy" link or the modern happy ending assumption of fairy tales (certainly isnt happy for a lot of the characters in the bible).

 

[drew]

What a load of bollocks on some of these posts.

As I see it, and I have thought about this before reaching conclusions, is that there are only to rules to religion.

1. You must believe in life (of one form or another) after death.
2. You must believe in the power of prayer, ie that your questions are answered by a superior being or force and that that force can change the course of events at a whim.

Everything else is just window dressing. Personally, I don't believe in either and therefore do not consider myself to be religious. With regard to the first, I take the view that people fear the end and therefore have created this eternal life to make it more acceptable and bearable. As for the second, the question is why does your God not answer every prayer.

I have also never heard a plausible arguement as to why your 'God' takes the lives of innocent children who have never 'sinned' in their lives, subject them, in some cases, to a life of pain, torture or starvation yet the perpertrators get away with it. Why does this all seeing being not strike down any paedophile, rapist or murderer.

It seems to me that this 'God' is quite happy to watch innocent people suffer and that is nothing short of bullying. On that basis alone, 'he' is not worthy of my worship.

I can only accept the term God as another term for the word fate. You can't control it and you can't change it (because you can never prove exactly what an alternative outcome would have been). And when you die, the only thing that lives on is the memories of you that other people have.

 

[bhaexpress]

What have fairy stories got to do with religion? And what has religion got to do with fairy stories?

What you are revealing, I think, is that you were never exposed to religion as a child. Or, if you were, you weren't paying proper attention.

By all means, reject religion. But don't dismiss it as 'fairy stories'. That's simplistic, prejudiced nonsense, no different from the simplistic nonsense that the creationists believe in.

So Jesus really did feed thousand with a mere five loaves and a few fish ? I wonder if David Blane or David Copperfield will have a go at that. The problem with much of the Bible (and the Koran for that matter) is that the lastest bit is over two thousand years old. It's target audience at the time had no Television, Radio, Internet and so on, they were simple people most of whom would have found a trip to the shops a serious expedition. I have no issue with the Ten Commandments but they parables are a rather different matter. Factor in that the Bible has been 'amended' over the years to suit various generations own agendas which means that today it does not depict an accurate version of Christ's original words and teachings and yet so many people choose not to recognize this or even know about it. It is not a reliable source of advice as far as being 'The Word of God'.

 

[Hannibal smith]

I don't understand why the two can't sit together really. God created the Earth and it's creatures... and they evolved. Personally I reckon He made the planet and he's now got his feet up. He doesn't get involved in the day-to-day running of the planet, but may occasionally blow something up for a bit of a laugh

This theory sort of exisits already. Its called Gaia (the wiki page below does not really do it justice). In a nutshell, the Earth is a living breathing organism which will look after itself (i.e The Earth survived but the Dinosaurs didn't etc).

The difference between this and most theories is that lovelock was a scientist and a religious man who believes in both evolution and God.

Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tricky Dicky]

What have fairy stories got to do with religion? And what has religion got to do with fairy stories?

What you are revealing, I think, is that you were never exposed to religion as a child. Or, if you were, you weren't paying proper attention.

By all means, reject religion. But don't dismiss it as 'fairy stories'. That's simplistic, prejudiced nonsense, no different from the simplistic nonsense that the creationists believe in.

So Ed, are you denying me the right to categorize the belief in a supernatural /supreme entity (or whatever you want to call it) as completely false and fictional "In My View". Leaving aside the holy books of each faith - which I think most people accept are not to be taken as factual.

Anyway, I have no appetite for any argument, I have no problem with people beleiving what they want to beleive, as long as I have the right to the same, and my belief is that there is nothing remotely "supernatural" and that evolution is far more beautiful than religion could ever be.

BTW - You are correct in that I wasn't exposed to religion at all, although I'm not sure why as my parents do now regularly go to church.

 

[Pantani]

A topic on religion and evolution. Unsurprisingly it didn't take long for people to throw the insults out.

I don't like to discuss the topic much, as athiests tend to be offended by the mere existence of an opinion other than their own and attack peoples opinions with insults fairly quickly.

I believe in both creationism (big bang anyone?) and evolution (the bible should not be taken literally, or we'd be chopping womens breasts off if they injured our nuts). They are not mutually exclusive.

As for the actual topic, is the film any good? I haven't seen it.

Isn't the Big Bang theory based on the idea that the universe expanded from a singularity (similar to a black hole) of infintesimal density then the university expanded from this. So if there is a God perhaps he created this singularity. Looking at the Earth in isolation is frankly ridiculous (not your point, but the main thrust of many of the arguments on this thread), the universe as a whole is the key. So I sort of agree with you, although I am an atheist.

 

[Pantani]

So Jesus really did feed thousand with a mere five loaves and a few fish ? I wonder if David Blane or David Copperfield will have a go at that. The problem with much of the Bible (and the Koran for that matter) is that the lastest bit is over two thousand years old. It's target audience at the time had no Television, Radio, Internet and so on, they were simple people most of whom would have found a trip to the shops a serious expedition. I have no issue with the Ten Commandments but they parables are a rather different matter. Factor in that the Bible has been 'amended' over the years to suit various generations own agendas which means that today it does not depict an accurate version of Christ's original words and teachings and yet so many people choose not to recognize this or even know about it. It is not a reliable source of advice as far as being 'The Word of God'.

The ten commandments and various other prescriptions in major religions need to be understood as what they are. Right back in the day religions created rules for how to live your life, most of which were sensible. Don't steal from your neighbours, don't sleep with your cousin, prepare your food in certain ways. Most of these rules enabled people to live better longer lives but in reality are not some divine creation but laws set by a religion rather than by a government. Basically religions were the welfare state before such a thing existed. That is not to say that there definitely is not some truth to religions, I just don't know, but, that they are political constucts created by man.

 

[Acker79]

the really tricky question is which came first the protein or the DNA?

RNA. It's a more active, less stable variation of DNA. DNA evolved as a way of storing the information in RNA in a more stable molecule. Various versions of RNA play a major role in the expression of DNA as polypeptides and proteins.

 

[bhaexpress]

The ten commandments and various other prescriptions in major religions need to be understood as what they are. Right back in the day religions created rules for how to live your life, most of which were sensible. Don't steal from your neighbours, don't sleep with your cousin, prepare your food in certain ways. Most of these rules enabled people to live better longer lives but in reality are not some divine creation but laws set by a religion rather than by a government. Basically religions were the welfare state before such a thing existed. That is not to say that there definitely is not some truth to religions, I just don't know, but, that they are political constucts created by man.

Couldn't agree more. However, it's when people think it's okay to kill homosexuals because the Bible says so even though the Third Commandment is 'Thou Shalt No Kill' is when I have an issue. As I say some people are rather too keen to interpret the Bible literally because it suits them to for whatever reason. Believe what you want but follow the law as far as I'm concerned. Jehovah's Witnesses not having Blood Transfusions or Mormons not drinking (their choice yes but Christ drank wine) are another couple of anomalies but they only effect the individual normally so good luck to them.

However when a Religion seeks to prevent or censor something that is legal by the law of the land that's a different matter.

 

[glasfryn]

What a load of bollocks on some of these posts.

As I see it, and I have thought about this before reaching conclusions, is that there are only to rules to religion.

1. You must believe in life (of one form or another) after death.
2. You must believe in the power of prayer, ie that your questions are answered by a superior being or force and that that force can change the course of events at a whim.

Everything else is just window dressing. Personally, I don't believe in either and therefore do not consider myself to be religious. With regard to the first, I take the view that people fear the end and therefore have created this eternal life to make it more acceptable and bearable. As for the second, the question is why does your God not answer every prayer.

I have also never heard a plausible arguement as to why your 'God' takes the lives of innocent children who have never 'sinned' in their lives, subject them, in some cases, to a life of pain, torture or starvation yet the perpertrators get away with it. Why does this all seeing being not strike down any paedophile, rapist or murderer.

It seems to me that this 'God' is quite happy to watch innocent people suffer and that is nothing short of bullying. On that basis alone, 'he' is not worthy of my worship.

I can only accept the term God as another term for the word fate. You can't control it and you can't change it (because you can never prove exactly what an alternative outcome would have been). And when you die, the only thing that lives on is the memories of you that other people have.

way to go ......what a cracking post, just about how I see it

 

[glasfryn]

BTW - You are correct in that I wasn't exposed to religion at all, although I'm not sure why as my parents do now regularly go to church.

some do as they get older its an insurance policy

 

[bhaexpress]

some do as they get older its an insurance policy

Very true !

 

[withdeanwombat]

Take a load of new players.Give them to Mr Slade.They evolve - gel - into an irresistable force,and,being fitter than all other teams,win the league,the cup and the JPT.

Would you Adam'n'Eve it?

 

[Mellotron]

No reason Evolution and Christian faith can't go hand in hand.

I am a Christian. I know literally hundreds of Christians. In thousands of conversations NONE of them have revealed themselves to be Creationists.

 

[Nibble]

The ideas of a higher being creating life, A messiah / Christ figure arriving on earth and all the other tales are found in most cultures in one form or another. Apart from Australia's aboriginals most of these stories were generated with the idea of being moralistic fables and were not meant to be taken literally:

For example the Idea of Christ turning water into wine probably originated from Christ giving wine to non jews in church instead of the water they were allowed. A fable based on a possible event.

However, fundamentalists and other religious groups who think they have a monoply on these tales take it all too literally. Often there is an ulterior motive. For instance many Christian churches were set up to amass wealth. The only reason priests could not marry or produce children was so they had no heirs and would leave their money to the church. Taxes enforced on the population by the church is another example.

Just recently a church (forget location exactly) in England have started a law suit against local residents, citing an ancient law that anyone living within a certain distance of the church is liable for all repair costs to the church.

Cynical, bastardisation of beliefs that people hold dear has been around for centuries.

 

[bhaexpress]

The ideas of a higher being creating life, A messiah / Christ figure arriving on earth and all the other tales are found in most cultures in one form or another. Apart from Australia's aboriginals most of these stories were generated with the idea of being moralistic fables and were not meant to be taken literally:

For example the Idea of Christ turning water into wine probably originated from Christ giving wine to non jews in church instead of the water they were allowed. A fable based on a possible event.

However, fundamentalists and other religious groups who think they have a monoply on these tales take it all too literally. Often there is an ulterior motive. For instance many Christian churches were set up to amass wealth. The only reason priests could not marry or produce children was so they had no heirs and would leave their money to the church. Taxes enforced on the population by the church is another example.

Just recently a church (forget location exactly) in England have started a law suit against local residents, citing an ancient law that anyone living within a certain distance of the church is liable for all repair costs to the church.

Cynical, bastardisation of beliefs that people hold dear has been around for centuries.

Interesting insight and far more believable than much of the 'myths' that go with religion. I have found that rather a lot of believers of any persuasion would totally dismiss this which is what I find so annoying. Frankly you've provided a far more credible explanation for some facets of faith which I'd love to pass on but it would be a waste of breathe. Religion and logic don't go hand in hand.

 

[Herne Hill Seagull]

That's a very arrogant statement - and again very ignorant. I wish atheists would make their mind up. First we have them saying on buses that there's (probably) no God so stop worrying and enjoy life. Now HHS tells us our beliefs are something we invent to stop worrying. Make your minds up!

My mind is made up, Juan, just as those of the believers are. Not arrogance, I don't think. Are the people who ring my doorbell at the weekend arrogant for telling me that I'm missing out, that my life is empty? They are just as certain as I am.

The word 'probably' was added to those adverts as a sop to theologist pressure groups, who did not want a purely atheist message on the buses. It was originally going to read simply 'there is no God'. Funny that, I didn't want a purely religious message on the buses but it appeared anyway.

I believe, in answer to your point, that the message to stop worrying was aimed at people who could broadly be described as agnostic. I can only speak for myself but I am certainly not worrying - the only thing that worries me about the argument for the existence or otherwise of God, is what people do in his name.

 

[Notters]

Well I must say, I'm most surprised that this hasn't yet degenerated into an all-out binfest.

As a scientists, I have a bit of a problem with the very words "belief" and "faith". I'm quite sure that there is a scientific explanation for everything in this world, though there will always be far more unknown than known, which is why science can be so fascinating. A surprisingly large amount of what we experience, in terms of behaviour, emotion, etc. can be explained by evolution. It's all very well saying religion and logic don't go hand in hand and should be mutually exclusive, but does this mean that religion should not be questioned.

A lot of the arguments in favour of religion seem to be that it is a force for good (i.e. charity work, etc.), it makes people happy, etc., etc. But none of these arguments in any way back up the tenets of the religions. Just because it would be lovely if we all went to heaven, doesn't mean that heaven exists, for example.

I can understand why some people find Richard Dawkins to be rather abrasive; a friend of mine met him and he was apparently very rude. To compare him to a funamentalist from any religion seems odd, however, seems odd as he takes meticulous care to back up every point he has with science.

Some have said that not all Christians are Creationists is surely wrong; they are by definition creationists. They "believe" that the universe was "created" by a divine "being". This is, however, quite clearly different to fundamentalism. In a way, though, I see more sense in fundamentalism that strictly follows what is written in the bible, or at least the new testament, than simply picking and choosing which bits seem "nice". Anyway, I'm not really sure what my point is, so I'll shut up now.

 

[Nibble]

I recommend reading Zen & The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance for a view on how science, religion/theology and philosophy can exist hand in hand.

 

[Mellotron]

As a scientists, Oh dear.

I can understand why some people find Richard Dawkins to be rather abrasive; a friend of mine met him and he was apparently very rude. To compare him to a funamentalist from any religion seems odd, however, seems odd as he takes meticulous care to back up every point he has with science.

Some have said that not all Christians are Creationists is surely wrong; they are by definition creationists. They "believe" that the universe was "created" by a divine "being".

No he doesn't. He's a rude arrogant obnoxious narrow minded prat. So yes similar to a fundamentalist. He certainly doesn't back up all his points with Science, he often relies on childish logic or basic ignorant assumptions regarding people who have faith.

Definition of Creationist = someone who rejects the theory of evolution, and believes the world is approx. 6,000 years old. Thus I, and the VAST majority of Christians in this country, are NOT Creationists.