Why do people reject religion? I think I know

[Adami]

If we're actually discussing psychological evaluations, there isn't enough info in the bible to say anything about Jesus in that regard.

[Ħ]

If we're actually discussing psychological evaluations, there isn't enough info in the bible to say anything about Jesus in that regard.

I respectfully disagree....but even supposing you were right, "innocent until proven guilty" right?  The majority of people are psychologically stable--you would have to make a bigger case for his instability than for his stability (which you can't do).

[Adami]

If we're actually discussing psychological evaluations, there isn't enough info in the bible to say anything about Jesus in that regard.

I respectfully disagree....but even supposing you were right, "innocent until proven guilty" right?  The majority of people are psychologically stable--you would have to make a bigger case for his instability than for his stability (which you can't do).

Well I come from a psychological background, and I'm telling you much more info is needed. But I wasn't accusing jesus of being mentally unstable, so I'm fine with the innocent until proven guilty thing, I was just pointing out that a clinician wouldn't make any kind of diagnosis based on the info given.

[Ħ]

I understand.

[73109]

First off, Bosk, I am sorry and I will think before I post what could be looked at as death threats.

Second:

Yep, because, truth be told, Jesus had awesome ideas. He was a little wacko, but his ideas were badass.

You must have done quite a bit of research to come to such a conclusion.  Care to share?

Awesome Idea:  "Be excellent to each other."

Wacko-ness:  "God is my Dad."

Pretty much. I understand what BrotherH is getting at, but from my perspective, I am very questionable about god in the first place, and going farther into that, what god's son would be like. I have not ruled out the possibility of a god but if he is so godly in his godliness, I doubt he'd tell all of us to kill eachother and have a son who is considered a savior by millions. To be honest, and this is my personal opinion and I hope I don't get flack for it but...religion just sounds off. If you were clueless and someone told you their religion, it would seem off. Hell, scientologists believe that many millions of years ago, an alien named Xenu  came onto earth, blew some shit up, and now here we are. How fucked does that sound? Same goes for Christianity. There is a dude up in the sky who sees and knows everything but he gives you free will and is the cause of all the pain and suffering in the world but he loves everybody...seems kinda off if you don't believe in that.

[millahh]

Turns out the video was a hoax.  However, it's the perfect example of Poe's Law:

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

I think that does get to the heart of the question in the OP...that this could be so easily believed is because it's only a slight extension of things that Christian leaders have said anout previous disasters.  And seeing how religion can warp people's relationship with both reality and their own humanity will not endear it to anyone...and will subtly bias the agnostics against religion, even if they do realize that such people are the lunatic fringe.

[Bombardana]

One reason I reject religion (Christianity specifically) is based on its inconsistencies with human knowledge. For example. we know that the world is billions of years old, that is a scientific fact. For anything to claim that the world is only 6,000 years old is incompatible with this scientific fact. Given the choice between the science viewpoint, which is based on insurmountable evidence, and the Christian viewpoint, which has no evidence, I choose to go with science. The response by believers to these kinds of incompatibilities is sometimes to say that the Bible is being metaphorical or has artistic licence, i.e. the seven days of creation represent periods of time in the universes formation. And so there is an inconsistency within the religion itself of some people saying the world is 6,000 years old, and evidence to the contrary is somehow false, but some people saying the world is billions of years old, and the biblical account of its creation is just a generalised metaphorical account. To me, this is a huge difference with important implications. I find it hard to accept Christianity because when it steps into the realm of science, it inevitably shows just how wrong it is. And you know, maybe some people would say that science as a concept is flawed for whatever reason, but I'd still have more "faith" in science than I would in religion.

[73109]

Turns out the video was a hoax.  However, it's the perfect example of Poe's Law:

Go on...

I mean, it must be some elaborate hoax. She has been posting fundamental Christian videos on youtube for over a year now.

[Jamesman42]

In all fairness to the text, Jesus claimed that God was everyone's father, not just his.

I was going to respond to this, but I already know what you're going to say.

I try to not go based on feelings when thinking about if God exists. I've been on both sides of the fence (atheism and Christianity), and a lot of that was from feelings. Not all of it, mind you, but a good chunk of my life.

I see life has having to have a purpose of some sort, or something that gave it purpose. To me, that HAS to be God. It makes sense on any level to me. That's how I rationalize it.

[William Wallace]

One reason I reject religion (Christianity specifically) is based on its inconsistencies with human knowledge. For example. we know that the world is billions of years old, that is a scientific fact. For anything to claim that the world is only 6,000 years old is incompatible with this scientific fact. Given the choice between the science viewpoint, which is based on insurmountable evidence, and the Christian viewpoint, which has no evidence, I choose to go with science. The response by believers to these kinds of incompatibilities is sometimes to say that the Bible is being metaphorical or has artistic licence, i.e. the seven days of creation represent periods of time in the universes formation. And so there is an inconsistency within the religion itself of some people saying the world is 6,000 years old, and evidence to the contrary is somehow false, but some people saying the world is billions of years old, and the biblical account of its creation is just a generalised metaphorical account. To me, this is a huge difference with important implications. I find it hard to accept Christianity because when it steps into the realm of science, it inevitably shows just how wrong it is. And you know, maybe some people would say that science as a concept is flawed for whatever reason, but I'd still have more "faith" in science than I would in religion.

There's no reason to think that a rift between religion and science exists. People think they're in conflict because a handful of zealots like to claim science as an outgrowth of naturalism. In reality, being a productive scientist has little to do with the metaphysical baggage everybody carries with them.

[eric42434224]

I try to not go based on feelings when thinking about if God exists. I've been on both sides of the fence (atheism and Christianity), and a lot of that was from feelings. Not all of it, mind you, but a good chunk of my life.

I see life has having to have a purpose of some sort, or something that gave it purpose. To me, that HAS to be God. It makes sense on any level to me. That's how I rationalize it.

It seems to be you are still basing it on feelings.  There is no evidence that life must have purpose, or that something gave it purpose.....and to come to a conclusion that it must be a god that did it, again without evidence....seems to be a conclusion that is based on "feelings" for lack of a better word.  If something makes sense to you, but you have no real evidence for it, you are just working on your own feelings.  Not that basing your belief on feelings is bad....I think it must play some part.....especially with religion where I think feelings have to play a big part.   JMO of course.

[Durg]

One reason I reject religion (Christianity specifically) is based on its inconsistencies with human knowledge. For example. we know that the world is billions of years old, that is a scientific fact. For anything to claim that the world is only 6,000 years old is incompatible with this scientific fact. Given the choice between the science viewpoint, which is based on insurmountable evidence, and the Christian viewpoint, which has no evidence, I choose to go with science. The response by believers to these kinds of incompatibilities is sometimes to say that the Bible is being metaphorical or has artistic licence, i.e. the seven days of creation represent periods of time in the universes formation. And so there is an inconsistency within the religion itself of some people saying the world is 6,000 years old, and evidence to the contrary is somehow false, but some people saying the world is billions of years old, and the biblical account of its creation is just a generalised metaphorical account. To me, this is a huge difference with important implications. I find it hard to accept Christianity because when it steps into the realm of science, it inevitably shows just how wrong it is. And you know, maybe some people would say that science as a concept is flawed for whatever reason, but I'd still have more "faith" in science than I would in religion.

I reeeaallly don't want to get into the origin of life debate (actually I really don't like getting into any science/faith debates) but I will point out one thing you left out.  Another thought is that God created the world from the start to already have age.  For example we know that rocks take time to form.  So if He spoke it into existence then the rocks would have to have age to start out.  I'm also not so sure that all scientists put complete, 100%, faith in the accuracies of carbon dating.  At least when the readings go back to the billions of years range.

[GuineaPig]

One reason I reject religion (Christianity specifically) is based on its inconsistencies with human knowledge. For example. we know that the world is billions of years old, that is a scientific fact. For anything to claim that the world is only 6,000 years old is incompatible with this scientific fact. Given the choice between the science viewpoint, which is based on insurmountable evidence, and the Christian viewpoint, which has no evidence, I choose to go with science. The response by believers to these kinds of incompatibilities is sometimes to say that the Bible is being metaphorical or has artistic licence, i.e. the seven days of creation represent periods of time in the universes formation. And so there is an inconsistency within the religion itself of some people saying the world is 6,000 years old, and evidence to the contrary is somehow false, but some people saying the world is billions of years old, and the biblical account of its creation is just a generalised metaphorical account. To me, this is a huge difference with important implications. I find it hard to accept Christianity because when it steps into the realm of science, it inevitably shows just how wrong it is. And you know, maybe some people would say that science as a concept is flawed for whatever reason, but I'd still have more "faith" in science than I would in religion.

I reeeaallly don't want to get into the origin of life debate (actually I really don't like getting into any science/faith debates) but I will point out one thing you left out.  Another thought is that God created the world from the start to already have age.  For example we know that rocks take time to form.  So if He spoke it into existence then the rocks would have to have age to start out.  I'm also not so sure that all scientists put complete, 100%, faith in the accuracies of carbon dating.  At least when the readings go back to the billions of years range.

I don't know why a god would create a world with an incredibly dense backstory featuring billions of years of evolution, extinction, plate movement, climate change, extraterrestrial impacts, etc.  Or why it would make it appear that human civilization had been humming along for a couple thousand years before the earth sprang into existence.  It's simply not a plausible explanation by any stretch.  At some point you have to apply Occam's Razor.

As for carbon dating, it is not used to date things estimated to be older than 50,000 years (the half-life of Carbon-14 is too short), but other methods that are used to date older suites of rocks are quite accurate.

[bosk1]

I don't know why a god would create a world with an incredibly dense backstory featuring billions of years of evolution, extinction, plate movement, climate change, extraterrestrial impacts, etc.  Or why it would make it appear that human civilization had been humming along for a couple thousand years before the earth sprang into existence. 

Don't worry.  He didn't.

[Zook]

Bosk: ''if you believe in the Geico Cavemen, we are not a match.''

[gmillerdrake]

  At some point you have to apply Occam's Razor.

    This scientific theory is actually a theory I see as proving God existis. For me, it is way easier to believe that there is a divine being that spoke everything into existance than a random, freak natural event that even the brainiest of scientists have failed to re-create using all of our infinate knowledge and technology. In fact, recently on "The Universe" program on Discovery a scientist admitted that in multiple thousands of attempts to re-create the big bang they have yet to produce results that would allow life to exitst anywhere in that universe. There are over 60 variables that must be in perfect sinc, not one of them even a fraction of a fraction off, for a universe to be hospitable for life anywhere to exist. This scientist used the very technical and thought provoking phrase "lucky for us" to describe how our universe actually "lucked" out and had those variables in perfect place. When a conciousness like God, who man has no capability of understanding, speaks and light comes out of darkness instantaneously, I picture something as magnificant and dramatic as the "Big Bang."
  Our planet and the animals, ecosystems etc. that inhabit it are a perfect example.It is entirely more acceptable to me and much simpler to understand that there is no way possible given the complexity of the design of an animal even as simple as a bird, much less a human body, that these things haphazardly through trial and error over billions of years evolved from a single cell organism, an organism that must have haphazardly evolved over billions of years from bits of amino acids and what not. That is just as ludicrous for me to subscribe to as it is I suppose for "you" non believers to acknowledge God. Once that single cell "died" it died..it didn't take it's grandson over to the pond and discuss what it learned to pass on to the next generation. the cell next to it didn't say "Oh harry there was to thin skinned, I better beef up my outer shell"  I'll freely admit I have not studied the evolution of a single cell to a walking talking highly complex human body theory if those of you in the P/R thread who consistently put down and bash Christianity and religion admit that you haven't studied the Bible or Gods word...because just as it is apparent that I don't know what to call that mythical single cell theory...it is as apparent you all have no honest understanding of the religion you demean.
   The harmony that our planets eco system operates in is so fine tuned, from the tides and ocean currents to the air streams and weather systems. The infrastructure of the "food chain" and every natural specimens perfect place and order in this world suggests to me that there indeed is a being worthy of praise behind it all. The notion that all of what we know on our planet, solar system, the universe for that matter are some sort of cosmic accident is outright naive. Talk about scientific...the odds on this being possible have to be astronomic. Our very conciousness is an example of divine intervention. It's not because we began to eat protein 30,000 years ago..it's because he first loved us.
  Unless something has changed evolution is still a theory, a patchwork theory at best that connects skeletal dots saying "these bones became those bones". Just as I will never be able to bring to any one of you Jesus Christ in the flesh and say "Here he is", not one of you can bring to me absolute evidence of evolution or that science is the reason we love, cry and laugh. Occam's Razor...sure I'll use it because if you really take and intellectual and honest, logical look at it all the answer isn't in Darwin's notebook. It's right there inside each one of our souls just waiting...
  You may all now commence your carnivorous dissection.........should be plenty there for the "enlightened" amongst you to bash me with.

[jason0899]

One of the main reasons so many reject the Christian religion today is that it has become, well, too much religion.

“If religion is characterised by the recruitment of God to serve our agendas, and faith is about putting our agendas at the service of God, then clearly there is too much religion in the world, and not enough faith.” – Bishop John Saxbee.

Basically this is describing how many "christians" today look at religion with the question, "what can I get out of this for myself?" A lot of people also ask, "What belief system am I most comfortable with?" instead of "Which belief system do I really believe is true?" The result is that many people grow up in Christian homes and just claim Christianity as their religion because it's comfortable. Christ was all about loving and giving one's self to others, but many are more concerned about fitting in. The result is your all too common stereotypical hypocritical Christian. They claim the name of Christ but do little to show it.

Christ's original followers did not call themselves Christians. Other people noticed their actions and labelled them for what they did, which was acting selflessly as Christ had done.

As far as fitting in, the same thing often goes for many who blindly follow the complete intellectual road. People can be afraid to ask the big questions which may appear to have supernatural answers, but they are afraid to voice their opinions and thoughts. They're afraid of appearing stupid to friends who strongly believe any belief in God is unintelligent. Not to say many don't come to this conclusion themselves, just a side note there...

Anyways, this hanging onto Christian beliefs for a sense of righteousness, a sense of belonging, or just a ticket to heaven has left much of the American Christian Church divided and ineffective in helping others. People argue over small interpretations leaving the church divided by customs. This in general can give a very bad appearance to anyone curious about Christianity. I'd encourage anyone curious about what Christianity is about to study Christ. Don't study the people who may just be claiming Christianity to fit in or feel good about themselves, study the source.

That being said, there are a lot of great Christians out there. I've seen Christians help other people completely turn their lives around from drugs, alcohol, and unhealthy relationships through Christian communities and support, so I know there is a lot of truth to what Jesus said and that not all who claim Christ are jerks. There are a lot of mini-debates that popped up as far as the Psychology of Jesus that would be pretty interesting to discuss. Psychologists have studied Christ by the way, looking into personality types and the improbability of someone being insane (claiming to be God) and still speaking so many truths. Another side note, we often think of Christ as extremely conservative in our culture, but in his day and age he was very liberal. He threw aside social class and gender role norms of their culture to give a strong message of equality.

Have a great Saint Patty's Day everyone!

[j]

This scientific theory is actually a theory I see as proving God existis. For me, it is way easier to believe that there is a divine being that spoke everything into existance than a random, freak natural event that even the brainiest of scientists have failed to re-create using all of our infinate knowledge and technology. In fact, recently on "The Universe" program on Discovery a scientist admitted that in multiple thousands of attempts to re-create the big bang they have yet to produce results that would allow life to exitst anywhere in that universe. There are over 60 variables that must be in perfect sinc, not one of them even a fraction of a fraction off, for a universe to be hospitable for life anywhere to exist. This scientist used the very technical and thought provoking phrase "lucky for us" to describe how our universe actually "lucked" out and had those variables in perfect place. When a conciousness like God, who man has no capability of understanding, speaks and light comes out of darkness instantaneously, I picture something as magnificant and dramatic as the "Big Bang."

This doesn't have anything to do with the plausibility of the big bang theory, OR with the plausibility of the existence of God.

  Our planet and the animals, ecosystems etc. that inhabit it are a perfect example.It is entirely more acceptable to me and much simpler to understand that there is no way possible given the complexity of the design of an animal even as simple as a bird, much less a human body, that these things haphazardly through trial and error over billions of years evolved from a single cell organism, an organism that must have haphazardly evolved over billions of years from bits of amino acids and what not. That is just as ludicrous for me to subscribe to as it is I suppose for "you" non believers to acknowledge God. Once that single cell "died" it died..it didn't take it's grandson over to the pond and discuss what it learned to pass on to the next generation. the cell next to it didn't say "Oh harry there was to thin skinned, I better beef up my outer shell"  I'll freely admit I have not studied the evolution of a single cell to a walking talking highly complex human body theory if those of you in the P/R thread who consistently put down and bash Christianity and religion admit that you haven't studied the Bible or Gods word...because just as it is apparent that I don't know what to call that mythical single cell theory...it is as apparent you all have no honest understanding of the religion you demean.

I don't demean religion at all, but I know a fair amount about Christianity in particular, having studied it quite a bit.  It is clear, however, that you know absolutely nothing about evolutionary biology.  I don't mean that to be insulting, you ought to read up on it if you have time, because it's fascinating stuff.  And there's no reason it has to undermine or conflict with your religious faith; I work and study with people whose belief was even strengthened by such knowledge.

   The harmony that our planets eco system operates in is so fine tuned, from the tides and ocean currents to the air streams and weather systems. The infrastructure of the "food chain" and every natural specimens perfect place and order in this world suggests to me that there indeed is a being worthy of praise behind it all. The notion that all of what we know on our planet, solar system, the universe for that matter are some sort of cosmic accident is outright naive. Talk about scientific...the odds on this being possible have to be astronomic. Our very conciousness is an example of divine intervention. It's not because we began to eat protein 30,000 years ago..it's because he first loved us.

I can't say if there is or isn't a God, and none of this really has to do with that, but all of the things you mentioned (with the possible exception of human consciousness) have natural mechanisms that are currently quite well-understood.  But again, that doesn't mean there is no God, just like when we knew nothing about any of this stuff, it didn't mean that there IS a God.

As for the fine-tuned thing, as well as your comments about "accidents" and the like, you're looking at the universe through the lens of a human ego.  Of course if you apply probability theory to the whole thing, with the current state of things as the logical end result, the odds are astronomical.

  Unless something has changed evolution is still a theory, a patchwork theory at best that connects skeletal dots saying "these bones became those bones". Just as I will never be able to bring to any one of you Jesus Christ in the flesh and say "Here he is", not one of you can bring to me absolute evidence of evolution or that science is the reason we love, cry and laugh. Occam's Razor...sure I'll use it because if you really take and intellectual and honest, logical look at it all the answer isn't in Darwin's notebook. It's right there inside each one of our souls just waiting...
  You may all now commence your carnivorous dissection.........should be plenty there for the "enlightened" amongst you to bash me with.

I don't think anybody here is going to bash you.  We all have a lot to learn, and it's sometimes hard to see things from somebody else's perspective.  But I think there is a lot to be gained from *trying* to do just that, and from educating oneself about things of which one might not have a firm grasp.

-J

[gmillerdrake]

@j
   In the past I have attempted to educate myself in the field of evolutionary biology, even attempted to read a book called "Genesis and the Big Bang" written by a Jewish physicist who directly correlated scientific data with Biblical text. I couldn't finish one chapter. Unfortunately I honestly cannot "understand" alot of it. My brain doesn't operate in a scientific manner....math....physics...things of that nature are difficult things for me to grasp merely because I learn in a different way and just don't "get" it. I am sure deep down in my subconcious somewhere that is an underlying reason why I dismiss theories of that nature. Believe me I would love to have a better understanding of the 'scientific' realm because just as you have worked with people in which thier faith was strengthened by such knoweledge I am sure I could attain that type of satisfaction as well. It is just really difficult for me to delve into. I need to suck it up and force myself to learn it if not for any other reason than to provide a stronger counterpoint to individuals who are clearly more educated on the matter than I am.
   You mean to tell me that my cell analogies were off base? I thought for sure those were exactly how it went down.

[GuineaPig]

   You mean to tell me that my cell analogies were off base? I thought for sure those were exactly how it went down.

Well, humans did evolve from a single-celled organisms.  It's not too hard to grasp if you view the length of that process.  Three and half billion years is a long time. 

The evidence for evolution is pretty much incontrovertible.  One can observe via the fossil record the adaptation of species quite clearly, and it matches what biological evidence we have very well. 

As for Occam's Razor, I don't think it's a good argument for a god(s).  Mostly because it relies on avoiding assumptions, and there aren't many assumptions bigger than an intervening, personal god.

[gmillerdrake]

The evidence for evolution is pretty much incontrovertible.  One can observe via the fossil record the adaptation of species quite clearly, and it matches what biological evidence we have very well. 

 
      I just don't see it that way. You have to make just as many assumptions with the theory of evolution as "non-believers" say they have to make to believe in God. There are large gaps in the fossil record that have never been explained. An example I can think of is my pet Ball Python.
     Ball Pythons have two 'barbs' on either side of the slit they use to defecate/reproduce. When mating these barbs move and probe and help them find each other and attach so to speak. Scientists maintain that these are the left over remnants from when the Ball Python millions of years ago had legs...and over time the legs just slowly faded away. Yet there IS NO skeletal or fossil records of this mythical Ball Python predecessor that had legs or it’s relatives who had smaller…then smaller.…then smaller legs eventually ending at a barbed Ball Python. It certainly seems plausible if you believe in evolution..but nonetheless there is no actual evidence of the Python’s distant relatives other than a "educated scientific guess".
  We both know neither of us will convince the other to "change sides". My largest issue and what prompted me to write that lengthy rant of sorts is the prevalent attitude in P/R that believers are so naive and uneducated just for the fact that we believe in God. I know it's impossible to detect attitude/sarcasm/etc. in text, but even when you stated that "we did evolve from single cells", that is a statement of fact when in fact it is only a theory. What I interpret from the abundant amount of statements from that same vein of thinking in P/R is “listen here oh small minded friend”. It is condescending whether it is intended to be that way or not. Personally, I try, maybe not always succeed, but I try to respect the opinions of non-believers. I try not to allow myself to get to emotionally charged when ‘defending’ my faith in here but some of my posts clearly illustrate that isn’t always the case. This may be one of them….I hope I’m being respectful but I can’t determine that.

[eric42434224]

You have to make just as many assumptions with the theory of evolution as "non-believers" say they have to make to believe in God.

 

Lets assume you are correct, and you have to make just as many assumptions about Evolution as you do about god.  (I personally disagree with this, but...).   What does it even mean?  Are you not believing in evolution because of your faith?
Why isnt it plausible that god created the process...from the formation of solar systems, to ecosystems, to evolution of species and life.
Why is it not just as plausible that he created any process that science is proposing (including the "start" of the big bang)?  I see no reason why you cant...and it allows you to believe in god AND accept the observable nature of the universe (like evolution).

----------------following is not directed specifically to dmillerdrake:

Why oh why, for the millionth time, must evolution and a belief in god be mutually exclusive?  I do not subscribe to any religion, and I am not sure if a god exists or not (I feel pretty strong that if one does, it is very likely very different than any religion has determined it to be).  I just do not see how or why any scientific law or theory excludes the existence of a god.  And vice versa, I dont see how any belief in god excludes any proven science or even scientific theory.  The fact is....they are not mutually exclusive.

I find that the majority of people that dismiss evolution as it goes against their belief in god either: just dont understand evolution; use a man made creation like the bible in such a literal way that it does not let them accept it; or both.
I also find that someone who believes in evolution, and uses it as proof there is no god, doesnt really understand evolution.

Evolution is a process, not a beginning.  It is fact and is happening.  How or why life or evolution started is not something it claims to know.  There is nothing stopping an open minded person from believing in god and accepting evolution.

[gmillerdrake]

Just to clarify: I do not believe that science and God have to be in competition and cannot co-exist. I happen to believe that when creating existence a being that is as powerful and grand as God is would use science/physics/etc. to sculpt his creation. I do have an issue with believing that man has decended from apes through evolution but as far as God setting in motion a grand cosmic orchestra of fact based..scientific mechanisms to fulfill his will..that is perfectly acceptable to me. I would expect nothing less from a being of God's magnitude and wisdom.
   I have read/witnessed how Christians who try and meld the two entities of science and Faith and how God would use science have been treated...as if we are trying to cherry pick all the good stuff to support our faith.  That (coupled with not having a full understanding of some scientific process) is the reason for my apprehension to include science in my defense. Along with I personally do not need to have everything verified to a tee for me to be satisfied with the life I have been given. That is just me though.
   I do not deny the intrigue and complexity and utter brilliance of science. I can accept some scientific fact (as we humans have processed it) as a means that God uses and will contnue to use as a tool to build his creation. But I will always draw the line at pretending that mankind just haphazardly one day due to pure luck began to understand, reason, care, love and cultivate all the gifts of our spirit by pure chance. 

[eric42434224]

But I will always draw the line at pretending that mankind just haphazardly one day due to pure luck began to understand, reason, care, love and cultivate all the gifts of our spirit by pure chance.  

I dont enderstand evolution to the degree of any expert, and likely to the degree of some here in this forum.  But where in the theory of evolution does it say that man "...haphazardly one day due to pure luck began to understand, reason, care, love and cultivate all the gifts of our spirit..."  ?
I dont believe it does.  And again....why cant this be part of the process that a god has put into place?  Wouldnt an all powerfull god be fully aware of the results of the processes he put into place?

[j]

^That is my point.  If there is a God, we don't and can't know a whole lot about him.  But we can observe many things about the world and our advanced techniques in science and technology even allow us to make predictions about the past and the future, quite accurately in some cases.  In fact, I would say that if there is a God, the best way to find out more about him would to be to closely examine and explore the things that he created.

It sounds like you've got a bad taste in your mouth possibly from experiences with some people who associate themselves with the science fields who were also overly critical of, or condescending toward, religion.  But there are assholes everywhere, don't let them ruin it for you.

-J

[eric42434224]

More in line with the original question of "Why do people reject religion", I was thinking about it for a few minutes.  Many good reasons and examples have been expressed here, but I wanted to think about my reasons.

I feel that there is just no reason for it.  It is for worshipping a god who, if one exists, I would assume by the very nature of being a god, would not require us to worship, praise, and follow a specific dogma to achieve "salvation".  I tend to think a god would be more enlightened than man, and wouldnt have such requirements to earn his favor.

I think religion is a creation of man to attempt to answer questions that man has no way as of yet to answer.

I dont believe religion is required to believe in a god, or have a relationship with a god.  Just like I dont need to follow a particular team to enjoy hockey.

EDIT:  Funny thing is that many people are fans of a particular sports team because of where they live or who their parents liked.  Kind of the same reason many follow a particular religion!  LOL

[Durg]

Evolution is a process, not a beginning.  It is fact and is happening.  How or why life or evolution started is not something it claims to know.  There is nothing stopping an open minded person from believing in god and accepting evolution.

I'm not asking this question to be sarcastic or because I already have some sort of preconceived idea.  However, I would like to see if you can back up this statement.  Is there actual 100% proof that a new species can be formed from natural selection or mutations?  If so, I'd like to know about it because as far as I know it all still just theory.  I know that scientist say that there are some very strange animals at the Galapagos islands that are a result of these two factors but I have never read any proof that this in FACT is what happened.

BTW: of course God and evolution could be both real and many believe this.  It certainly makes much more sence than believing that the complexities of our world are due to billions and billions of natures tiny little "accidents".

[orcus116]

I think religion is a creation of man to attempt to answer questions that man has no way as of yet to answer.

I believe that was the reason thousands of years ago. It is apparent that some of that mindset is still around today because you'd figure with all the clear science that's evident almost everyone would have switched to what I think is a more logical way of viewing the world.

[gmillerdrake]

  Perhaps the fossils we are finding of the extremely old bones of man are remnants of our time on earth before we gave into temptation. Who knows. Obviously you can’t deny the tangible evidence of those fossils. My honest opinion (and biblical theory)is this. Man once enjoyed the perfect harmony and beauty of this planet as every other living animal does today. We were created just as every other creature was…to live ‘forever’. That’s how God intended it to be. We were not individuals and had no concept of that individuality that accompanies man today and were content with just ‘being’.
     The remainder of God’s creatures on this earth have no desire for individuality because they still abide God’s instruction and are content with his consistent and caring provision. Animals are satisfied with just being ‘animals’, they are abiding God’s commandment not to ‘eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ and to just trust in him. I believe God gave each and every animal on this planet that instruction. Don’t give in to that temptation of “knowing”  and you will enjoy utter peace. That may seem silly but I do not doubt in any manner that God communicates with all his creation and would offer that gift to them all.
    Man is the only one of God’s creatures that does not “fit in” on this planet and that is because we chose to disobey God and become “like” him in gaining that knowledge of good and evil. When we were thrown out of the Garden…we were essentially kicked out of the “club” that every other animal and intelligent species on this planet enjoys to this day. A Robin is a Robin today, yesterday and tomorrow. When one dies there is another Robin…it’s not “Mr. Johnson Robin” died how sad. Robin’s along with the rest of God’s animals will live on for countless hundreds of years because they have accepted the humility and decree that God has set before them. Once man chose to ignore that decree and find out for himself just what this life was all about we forfeited our eternal existence that was promised to us for a spiritual battle that wages everyday between us and a very jealous devil.  As we try to re-establish that Holy link that is ingrained within us with God and re-acquire everlasting life the enemy does all he can to derail our efforts to re-connect with God. Satan is ticked that God has given us a second chance to enjoy his eternal comfort and has forbid him from EVER feeling that greatness again. So enter the author of confusion to try and confound and confuse us in any means possible for us to lose sight of the fact that God does exist and that we do have a heavenly savior.  

   Could evolution be a part of the process God used to put all this into place?  Maybe…but I just tend to see it as a device and means used to distract us from more important issues.

[j]

Evolution is a process, not a beginning.  It is fact and is happening.  How or why life or evolution started is not something it claims to know.  There is nothing stopping an open minded person from believing in god and accepting evolution.

I'm not asking this question to be sarcastic or because I already have some sort of preconceived idea.  However, I would like to see if you can back up this statement.  Is there actual 100% proof that a new species can be formed from natural selection or mutations?  If so, I'd like to know about it because as far as I know it all still just theory.  I know that scientist say that there are some very strange animals at the Galapagos islands that are a result of these two factors but I have never read any proof that this in FACT is what happened.

Technically, there is not "actual 100% proof" of ANYTHING.  But the evidence is overwhelming.  And yes, the changes in DNA that mark the emergence of new species have been documented.  It's the core of taxonomy, common ancestry, biological classification, etc.

-J

[eric42434224]

Evolution is a process, not a beginning.  It is fact and is happening.  How or why life or evolution started is not something it claims to know.  There is nothing stopping an open minded person from believing in god and accepting evolution.

I'm not asking this question to be sarcastic or because I already have some sort of preconceived idea.  However, I would like to see if you can back up this statement.  Is there actual 100% proof that a new species can be formed from natural selection or mutations?  If so, I'd like to know about it because as far as I know it all still just theory.  I know that scientist say that there are some very strange animals at the Galapagos islands that are a result of these two factors but I have never read any proof that this in FACT is what happened.

BTW: of course God and evolution could be both real and many believe this.  It certainly makes much more sence than believing that the complexities of our world are due to billions and billions of natures tiny little "accidents".

To question #1:  I dont know if there is proof that a "new species" can be formed.  I dont hink there has been enough time to observe it, therefore we must extrapolate what we know and observe out to those time frames.  The problem with the macro evolution is that we cant observe it happening, just like solar system formation.  But the evidence certainly points to a likely conclusion and answer.

To your BTW:  What does this mean?  What makes more sense?  Evolution does say that the complexities of our world are due to the  billions of natures, as you call them "accidents".  I still dont see why that cant be reconciled with a belief in god.  Why is it necessary for god to have controlled all the "accidents"?  Why is it not perfectly plausible that he created this process of evolution by accidents and natural selection, and then let it take its course?  I understand your point I think....that god and evolution exist...but that the evolutionary process was divinely directed....and that is fine.  But I dont believe that evolution says its process has to be divinely directed or not.  It is simply about the observable process.  So, I dont think either idea of WHY evolutionary changes happen are at odds with a belief in god.  

[eric42434224]

 Perhaps the fossils we are finding of the extremely old bones of man are remnants of our time on earth before we gave into temptation. Who knows. Obviously you can’t deny the tangible evidence of those fossils. My honest opinion (and biblical theory)is this. Man once enjoyed the perfect harmony and beauty of this planet as every other living animal does today. We were created just as every other creature was…to live ‘forever’. That’s how God intended it to be. We were not individuals and had no concept of that individuality that accompanies man today and were content with just ‘being’.
     The remainder of God’s creatures on this earth have no desire for individuality because they still abide God’s instruction and are content with his consistent and caring provision. Animals are satisfied with just being ‘animals’, they are abiding God’s commandment not to ‘eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ and to just trust in him. I believe God gave each and every animal on this planet that instruction. Don’t give in to that temptation of “knowing”  and you will enjoy utter peace. That may seem silly but I do not doubt in any manner that God communicates with all his creation and would offer that gift to them all.
    Man is the only one of God’s creatures that does not “fit in” on this planet and that is because we chose to disobey God and become “like” him in gaining that knowledge of good and evil. When we were thrown out of the Garden…we were essentially kicked out of the “club” that every other animal and intelligent species on this planet enjoys to this day. A Robin is a Robin today, yesterday and tomorrow. When one dies there is another Robin…it’s not “Mr. Johnson Robin” died how sad. Robin’s along with the rest of God’s animals will live on for countless hundreds of years because they have accepted the humility and decree that God has set before them. Once man chose to ignore that decree and find out for himself just what this life was all about we forfeited our eternal existence that was promised to us for a spiritual battle that wages everyday between us and a very jealous devil.  As we try to re-establish that Holy link that is ingrained within us with God and re-acquire everlasting life the enemy does all he can to derail our efforts to re-connect with God. Satan is ticked that God has given us a second chance to enjoy his eternal comfort and has forbid him from EVER feeling that greatness again. So enter the author of confusion to try and confound and confuse us in any means possible for us to lose sight of the fact that God does exist and that we do have a heavenly savior.  

   Could evolution be a part of the process God used to put all this into place?  Maybe…but I just tend to see it as a device and means used to distract us from more important issues.

You think evolution is a trick being played on us by satan?

Oh my.

[Sigz]

The wiki article on speciation contains numerous observed examples of speciation, both in nature and in artificial environments.

[Durg]

Evolution is a process, not a beginning.  It is fact and is happening.  How or why life or evolution started is not something it claims to know.  There is nothing stopping an open minded person from believing in god and accepting evolution.

I'm not asking this question to be sarcastic or because I already have some sort of preconceived idea.  However, I would like to see if you can back up this statement.  Is there actual 100% proof that a new species can be formed from natural selection or mutations?  If so, I'd like to know about it because as far as I know it all still just theory.  I know that scientist say that there are some very strange animals at the Galapagos islands that are a result of these two factors but I have never read any proof that this in FACT is what happened.

Technically, there is not "actual 100% proof" of ANYTHING.  But the evidence is overwhelming.  And yes, the changes in DNA that mark the emergence of new species have been documented.  It's the core of taxonomy, common ancestry, biological classification, etc.

-J

Cool.  Wthat was the name of that new species?  I didn't know tha they had documented this.

EDITED:  Sigz had it covered.  This article should keep me occupied for a while.  :-)

[GuineaPig]

Evolution is a process, not a beginning.  It is fact and is happening.  How or why life or evolution started is not something it claims to know.  There is nothing stopping an open minded person from believing in god and accepting evolution.

I'm not asking this question to be sarcastic or because I already have some sort of preconceived idea.  However, I would like to see if you can back up this statement.  Is there actual 100% proof that a new species can be formed from natural selection or mutations?  If so, I'd like to know about it because as far as I know it all still just theory.  I know that scientist say that there are some very strange animals at the Galapagos islands that are a result of these two factors but I have never read any proof that this in FACT is what happened.

BTW: of course God and evolution could be both real and many believe this.  It certainly makes much more sence than believing that the complexities of our world are due to billions and billions of natures tiny little "accidents".

To question #1:  I dont know if there is proof that a "new species" can be formed.  I dont hink there has been enough time to observe it, therefore we must extrapolate what we know and observe out to those time frames.  The problem with the macro evolution is that we cant observe it happening, just like solar system formation.  But the evidence certainly points to a likely conclusion and answer.

Besides the very-well documented cases of adaptation (like land mammals into whales) there was a recent experiment conducted that resulted in an entirely new species of E. coli developing over the course of 20 years.