Evolution? How?

snood, You asked about the great minds of Newton and Einstein who believed in god. The two posts I made above answers that question for you.

What do you say about great minds like Newton and Einstein who believed in God?

... there seem to be quite a few who either don't believe in God or just don't know if there is a God on these threads.

And you are right, I don't believe science can threaten the general concept.

C.I., I already knew they believed in God, so your quotes didn't add anything to that knowledge. I was asking because the implication is often made that believers aren't thinkers, or clear-thinkers, or logical-thinkers, or thinkers somehow not in the same league. I was asking what those who make that implication think of the fact that there are great thinkers and intellectuals who believed in God.

cicerone imposter wrote:

snood, You asked about the great minds of Newton and Einstein who believed in god. The two posts I made above answers that question for you.

Einstein didn't believe in god as a sentient being.

snood wrote:

C.I., I already knew they believed in God, so your quotes didn't add anything to that knowledge. I was asking because the implication is often made that believers aren't thinkers, or clear-thinkers, or logical-thinkers, or thinkers somehow not in the same league. I was asking what those who make that implication think of the fact that there are great thinkers and intellectuals who believed in God.

It's not the concept of god which many people contend demonstrated muddled thought, but a literal interpretation of the bible.

I guess I'm just speaking for myself, but I don't think there are many, if any, people on these threads who contend that the general concept of god in any way undermines the thought process.

1. Is there anyone reading this who thinks that the general concept of god as a belief system conflicts with reason?

2. Is there anyone reading this who thinks that a literal interpretation of the Bible conflicts with reason?

So Ros, when you continually spout the phrase 'literal interpretation of the Bible' it holds no real meaning since it is the literal interpretation of specific passages, which can be as short as one verse or as long as an individual book or somewhere in between, that is at issue.

Is there anyone who believes that there is ANYONE who takes EVERY SINGLE passage of the Bible literally? There is no such person that I have ever met or talked to and I have been a Christian and discussed the Bible with Christians for decades.

Acceptance of the theory of evolution may have more to do with level of education rather than religion or lack of religion. A U.S. poll in 1993 showed acceptance of evolution apparently increases with level of education among people of various religions (or no religion).

snood wrote:

C.I., I already knew they believed in God, so your quotes didn't add anything to that knowledge. I was asking because the implication is often made that believers aren't thinkers, or clear-thinkers, or logical-thinkers, or thinkers somehow not in the same league. I was asking what those who make that implication think of the fact that there are great thinkers and intellectuals who believed in God.

It's not the concept of god which many people contend demonstrated muddled thought, but a literal interpretation of the bible.

I guess I'm just speaking for myself, but I don't think there are many, if any, people on these threads who contend that the general concept of god in any way undermines the thought process.

1. Is there anyone reading this who thinks that the general concept of god as a belief system conflicts with reason?

2. Is there anyone reading this who thinks that a literal interpretation of the Bible conflicts with reason?

Is there anyone who believes that there is ANYONE who takes EVERY SINGLE passage of the Bible literally? There is no such person that I have ever met or talked to and I have been a Christian and discussed the Bible with Christians for decades.

Everyone I have ever talked to about it interprets SOME passages literally and SOME passages figuratively in the same way we interpret speech with one another. I can determine if you are speaking literally or figuratively based on usage, context and so forth.

For instance if you say "Man, what a day. I am toast." or "Wow, she is hot." or "He is such a blockhead." Then we use context and usage, etc to determine if the statement is literal or not.

So Ros, when you continually spout the phrase 'literal interpretation of the Bible' it holds no real meaning since it is the literal interpretation of specific passages, which can be as short as one verse or as long as an individual book or somewhere in between, that is at issue.

I have said it many times before. Scientists can be religious, and the religious can be scientists. Whether the religious believe in the literal interpretation of the bible is a separate matter. What matters is that the religious folks try to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us that are in conflict. ID is a religious idea, and it is not science. People of religion are trying to push ID into our public schools to be taught to our children as science.

The bible has many contradictions, errors and omissions, but religious people refuse to acknowledge them. They rationalize them as either literal or figurative speech when no such difference is indicated in the bible.

It does not say "the following passage is to be taken literally" or "the following passage is to be taken figuratively." The following passage is meant to be "symbolic" only, and should be not interpreted as a literal verse.

All this type of rationalizations will be challenged.

Get used to it.

rosborne979 wrote:

snood wrote:

C.I., I already knew they believed in God, so your quotes didn't add anything to that knowledge. I was asking because the implication is often made that believers aren't thinkers, or clear-thinkers, or logical-thinkers, or thinkers somehow not in the same league. I was asking what those who make that implication think of the fact that there are great thinkers and intellectuals who believed in God.

It's not the concept of god which many people contend demonstrated muddled thought, but a literal interpretation of the bible.

I guess I'm just speaking for myself, but I don't think there are many, if any, people on these threads who contend that the general concept of god in any way undermines the thought process.

1. Is there anyone reading this who thinks that the general concept of god as a belief system conflicts with reason?

2. Is there anyone reading this who thinks that a literal interpretation of the Bible conflicts with reason?

Ros,
1. not me
2. absolutely

real life wrote:

Is there anyone who believes that there is ANYONE who takes EVERY SINGLE passage of the Bible literally? There is no such person that I have ever met or talked to and I have been a Christian and discussed the Bible with Christians for decades.

Everyone I have ever talked to about it interprets SOME passages literally and SOME passages figuratively in the same way we interpret speech with one another. I can determine if you are speaking literally or figuratively based on usage, context and so forth.

For instance if you say "Man, what a day. I am toast." or "Wow, she is hot." or "He is such a blockhead." Then we use context and usage, etc to determine if the statement is literal or not.

So Ros, when you continually spout the phrase 'literal interpretation of the Bible' it holds no real meaning since it is the literal interpretation of specific passages, which can be as short as one verse or as long as an individual book or somewhere in between, that is at issue.

Real life, this is a common subject to come up and invariably the hardcore fundamentalists dance around it as you have just done. To help clear this up, how about giving a few examples of scripture that you DO NOT take literally from the book of Genesis. I am requesting Genesis since this is the Evolution thread.

I gave you my view of the literal reading of Genesis that were in conflict with science. Here it is again.

If that is still too vague for you let me pin it down more. By "literal translation of Genesis" I mean Genesis as the first book of the Bible, and by "belief in a literal translation" I mean a literal belief in the six day creation, the Eden story with talking snake, the Noah story of a worldwide flood that killed all life on earth except for ark passengers, and other attendant folklore.

C.I.,

Again, you have mentioned omissions in the Bible? And again, I am asking you what you consider those omissions to be.

Ros, I would think that if everyone took the Bible 100% literally, we wouldn't be here. They wouldn't get past the OT and we'd all be dead. Except of course for those that have a habit of reading the end of a book first! LOL

I'm afraid that CI is 100% right on this one Momma Angel.

There are tons of omissions in the Bible.

Anything that is not mentioned in the Bible was omitted. I was omitted from the Bible and so were you. At least, I was not mentioned by name.