Just for a moment, consider:

Could the entire Phelps/Westboro Church thing be one, long-term, over-the-top “Poe?” Could this be a dedicated, premedidated, and (extraordinarily) committed act with the intention to shame absolutist fundamentalism?

Could he in fact be playing, “Devil’s Advocate?”

There are lots of good reasons to dislike Scott Adams, but his “belief” in Intelligent Design isn’t one of them.

Edit: hmm… I think those Vatican astronomers are smarter than we realize.

“How many scientists have created something out of nothing?”

Scientists don’t “create”, we DISCOVER and one of the things we’ve discovered is that the universe itself “creates” virtual particles, which, under the right circumstances, can become “real” particles.

,,,but you’d have to have actually STUDIED quantum physics to know that.

Gary 7

“BTW, on the “we are God” thing”

I read “Stranger,,,” in 1962(as I recall). I was traveling from Saudi Arabia back to high school in the US. Picked up the novel in the London airport and consumed it on that long flight.

I’ve always enjoyed Heinliens SciFi. He was a very thoughtful man.

He was not the first person to state “Thou art God”. I believe Quakers say the same thing or at least imply it by addressing everyone as “Thou”.

On the subject of faith;
When people say they have “faith in God” what they really mean is they have faith in some human who is expounding on what THEY think it’s all about.

Unless that particular individual has had his “mystical experience” he don’t know squat.(see; Thomas Aquinas last words).
,,,and I’m pretty sure the Pope hasn’t had that particular experience or, for that matter, has any other church elder.

Which is why I say ALL organized religions are bull.

Just my two bits,,,

Gary 7

I KNOW what those old time prophets experienced. I know WHAT they called god.

It was amazing but,,, it was PHYSICAL. Not some magical, granted from on high experience.

I say, if there IS a god, we’re it.

,,,and that totally undermines the lock religions claim to have, that THEIR approach(to an experience of god) is the only valid one.

I agree (about the last part). For one thing, it’s not sensible to say that God is real *and* there is only way to find Him. If God is real, and involved in our world, *inevitably* there will be more than one way to find Him. If you can only find Him through one religion, that’s a pretty good sign of a fake. To draw an analogy, if a salesman tells you he, and only he, can find the deadly toxins lurking in your drinking water, and you are indeed unable to replicate any of his tests, he’s probably faking the results. This is a no-brainer. Yet many people will claim freely that their religion is the only one that can really show you God, that the others are all fakes. Why does the same standard not apply?

I regard Christianity as a very good path towards God, but it can’t possibly be the only one. Assuming, of course, that God exists. Only if God did *not* exist could Christianity be the only path, because it could only be true if Christianity were a fraud.

BTW, on the “we are God” thing — have you read “Stranger in a Strange Land”? Very good book. It makes that assertion, and puts it like this: “thou art God.”

How many scientists have created something out of nothing? Zero? Not even a stick of juicy fruit gum? Amazing when you compare that to the creation of the entire universe. Well, I guess I’ll leave all you sophistimicated smart folks alone now, and go back to thumping my Bible. P.S.–If atheists are just as capable of being as moral and decent as believers, how come they all seem to be insufferable a$$holes like you, Phil?

Respectfully, cgray, I’d like to point out that the first person to use profanity in this thread was you. That’s probably not a very effective way to show that believers are moral and decent, unless your definition of those terms is something rather un-Christian.

The God of all Creation, who sent his son to die for our sins….. I believe in Him. I believe He made this universe. That doesn’t mean evolution is false. Evolution says nothing whatsoever about how it got started; if you want to criticize evolution, bringing creation into the story is rather silly because it’s irrelevant. Like criticizing the book “Ulysses” by demolishing “Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man”, it really just makes you look like you have no idea what you’re talking about. (And honestly, even the Big Bang doesn’t contradict the idea that God created the Universe. I’m not quite sure what could, because it’s a pretty much untestable thesis.)

One does not need to be a Christian, or even a believer in any god, to be moral or just or ethical. These things are inherent in the world; they do not depend on faith. The world becomes a better place when we care for one another. God had to send His son to tell us that, which says far more about us than it does about God. If we need to be Christians to know that we should be nice to others, than we’re not very pretty people. It should be something we accept *regardless* of faith.

————————–
Matth @ 52:

really wish Discover would issue a ban on anything related to religion at this site. I won’t dispute the scientific credentials of the authors who write for Discover but I’m damn sure they know next to nothing about theology so they would be doing everyone a favor if they just avoided the topic all together. Trust me, the level of ignorance on display here when the topic turns to matters of faith is just staggering.

I’m a Christian myself, and greatly enjoy this blog. I haven’t seen a massive amount of ignorance on display; if you’re troubled by Phil’s perception of certain Christians, perhaps you should consider what sort of a picture those Christians present of the faith. And I think Phil’s made it pretty clear that he draws a distinction between the whackaloon element and Christians as a whole. That coverups of abuse were institutionalized in the Church is shocking, and Phil was within his rights to say so. Do we hedge our words if it has to do with religion? Are you seriously saying that religion is above criticism? I hope not, because men and women have done untold damage using religion as their weapon through the millenia of recorded history.

Phil hasn’t talked theology much at all. He’s talked science, and how religion tries to muscle around and prevent science from being done, when the results of that science would be inconvenient. He’s talked about religions interfering in the educational system, and he’s talked about racism and abuse and bigotry perpetrated by people doing so in the name of God. He’s given his opinions on matters which religions have also expressed opinions about. None of that is theology. Just because it involves faith doesn’t mean it’s theology, nor does it mean anyone who lacks a theology degree is disqualified from expressing an opinion. Note also that just because you believe in God doesn’t mean your theology is any better. I know a lot of Christians who never crack open a Bible except to follow along with the reading on Sunday morning; faith doesn’t ensure any sort of expertise.

Frankly, you should be opposed to a lot of the things Phil has spoken against, because they are also contrary to many religions. Yet I see few believers openly criticizing the likes of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, despite the dubious theological standing of many of their views. Instead, believers rally around them, blindly defending them against the supposed hoards of anti-Christian attackers, without for a moment realizing that they’re not defending something very nice. It’s like a lot of people think religion is something you’re not supposed to examine very critically, and that’s dangerous. If you believe in the existence of an anti-Christ, that should terrify you, because *that* is precisely how an anti-Christ would operate. Not by demolishing Christianity from the outside, but by infiltrating it, dividing it, and turning it from a message of love and charity to a message of hate and selfishness. Think about it. A closed mind is a bad thing to have in science, but it’s at least as dangerous in matters of faith.

“Trust me, the level of ignorance on display here when the topic turns to matters of faith is just staggering.”

Oh goody, a theist who thinks all rational materialists know nothing about theology.

I describe my personal attitudes as “agnostic, rational materialist” because I HAVE studied the subject in some depth and have decided that ALL organized religion is a rip off.

NONE can provide the experience of our connection with the esoteric.

,,,but you, as an individual, could possibly experience that thru science. All you have to do is stimulate your “god module” and voila, instant metaphysical connection.

Of course, that’s not to say that particular experience is what mystics throughout the ages have endured. The “spontaneous” mystical experience usually leaves the recipient totally worthless as a functioning member of society whereas our technologically induced variety allows one to return to our daily lives inspired but functional.

If I had it to do over again, I’d probably do the techno approach. It would have saved me about a million dollars in lost income.

I KNOW what those old time prophets experienced. I know WHAT they called god.

It was amazing but,,, it was PHYSICAL. Not some magical, granted from on high experience.

I say, if there IS a god, we’re it.

,,,and that totally undermines the lock religions claim to have, that THEIR approach(to an experience of god) is the only valid one.

They’re wrong!

GAry 7

You come into Phil’s territory, spout all sorts of self-righteous BS, and HE’S the ***hole. Typical.

Oh, and as far as being “moral and decent” I would consider such things as genocide and institutionalized child rape to be just a smidgen higher on the immorality scale then slight rudeness. So why don’t you take your smug self out of here and go take care of that beam in your eye before you bother lecturing us again.

I’ll take a stab at that. Like any other group of people, there is a broad spectrum of atheists. Most sit quietly at home and make no noise about their atheism. Some are almost as insufferable as people who wander the streets and go up to strangers and ask, “Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal saviour?”

Funny how it’s the a$$holes who are vocal (although not all vocal ones are a$$holes).

And, of course, Wagner’s music is better than it sounds. (Tip of the riverboat paddlewheel to Mark Twain)

Because you come to our blogs and call us “insufferable a$$holes” for pointing out that your beliefs are based on wishful thinking?

Not that there was anything in this blog post about religion anyway – from a scientific standpoint alone ID/creationism is completely worthless. I suggest you quit whining and learn to laugh at yourself.

Yes, how can anyone possibly be a decent chap and also believe in something so pedestrian as “creationism”?? blech! LOL. Bit full of yourself don’t you think?

I really wish Discover would issue a ban on anything related to religion at this site. I won’t dispute the scientific credentials of the authors who write for Discover but I’m damn sure they know next to nothing about theology so they would be doing everyone a favor if they just avoided the topic all together. Trust me, the level of ignorance on display here when the topic turns to matters of faith is just staggering.

I realize that a lot of folks here believe they’re somehow defending science from the “dim-witted religious zealots” but that’s just the problem. Too often, a conflict doesn’t even exist (ie. the incalculable number of silly posts suggesting that there is a conflict between evolutionary theory and MAINSTREAM Christian doctrine) but readers are forced to endure brain-dead defenses of theories not even in dispute.

Please, just stick to science. That’s what we come here for. If I want an opinion on theology, I’ll go to an authority on the topic.