Atheism in the USVI

Stiphy: Interesting article on objective and subjective purpose of life. If we get to choose our purpose, as you suggest, then no one has a right to tell us our purpose is incorrect. Thus if my purpose is to kill as many people as I want, you can't tell me that my purpose has to be to fill a jail cell for the rest of my life. If my purpose is to be a corrupt politician, what gives you the right to interfere with that? Doesn't this lead to anarchy? I we evolved from a soup of inorganic matter and our purpose is just to exist, then we are demoted to little more than the survival of the fittest. Rich, healthy people must be the fittest. Then why are so many of them unhappy and feel they are missing something? It would also make sense for the fittest ones to get rid of the weaker ones who are wasting their resources, So: look out all you people on welfare and medicaid!...Sorry, but if you take your idea to its logical conclusion, it leaves a dismal picture and I can't buy it.

EngRMP Whatever amount of time it took, I see a wonderful design in it all. Seeing what happens to any system when you leave it alone (see my son's room, for instance) Or look at a house that has been abandoned for 100 years, makes me realize their must be more to it than randomness. I think it is God's work. Stil, it is only a finger pointing, and not the proof of His existence.

It is an embarrassment to our country's educational system that 40% of the adults in this country believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago and that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. It is time that this foolish nonsense called Christianity (actually all religion) be put behind us and identified for what it is, a throw back to a more primitive past where we relied on spirits and gods to explain the workings of nature.

I can never understand how otherwise intelligent people close their eyes and point to the bible as the ultimate truth. The origins of the bible scriptures are very vague. And it will soon become very clear that the bible has undergone many changes over the past 2000+ years. They are getting ready to publish on the Internet a digital version of the oldest known bible, complete with handwritten markups.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/06/ancient.bible.online/

Religion is all about control of the masses and nothing more. That is why Constantine created modern Christianity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtzJhTfQiMA

Edward, is this a first amendment issue?
http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/MI124870/?56

rotorhead: Then explain the ICA stones, please. I'm not convinced the earth is merely 6000 years old, but I'm also not conviced it's billions of years old, either. Too many anomolies abound for a neat, precise proof of either.

Easy to explain, they are fakes. Just like the Shroud of Turin.

Origin
The stones are reported to have been found in caves and stream beds. Because they are rocks and contain no organic material, Carbon-14 dating cannot be used. No other method of radiometric dating has been applied to the stones. Because the supposed locations of their alleged discovery have not been disclosed, it is impossible to estimate their age based on nearby geological strata. Furthermore, even a confirmation of the rocks' age would not prove that the engravings upon them had not been produced at a later date.

Neil Steede, an archaeologist who was investigating the Ica stones for The Mysterious Origins of Man (a film which attempted to make the case that humans had existed far earlier than previously thought), said that he found no patina on the engravings but that the rocks themselves showed patina, suggesting that the engravings are indeed younger than the rocks.

In 1998, Spanish investigator Vicente Paris declared after four years of investigation that the evidence indicates that the stones are a hoax. Among the proofs presented by this investigator were microphotographs of the stones that showed traces of modern paints and abrasives. The strongest evidence of fraud as claimed is the crispness of the shallow engravings; stones of great age should have substantial erosion of the surfaces.

Uschuya recantation
In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced a "genuine" Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung.

In 1996, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of the stones and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted the authorities of Peru to arrest Basilio Uschuya, as under Peruvian law it is illegal to sell archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted that they were hoaxes created by him and his wife. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.

He also confirmed that he had forged them during an interview with Erich von Däniken, but later recanted that claim during an interview with a German journalist.

In 2000, Spanish journalist J.J. Benitez went to Ocucaje and supposedly convinced Uchuya to show him where the stones had been discovered. Benitez claimed to have discovered nine new stones. Benitez later published the book Planeta Encantado, La huella de los Dioses (The Enchanted Planet: The Mark of the Gods).

Good article on science vs religion.
http://www.forward.com/articles/109086/

Stiphy: Interesting article on objective and subjective purpose of life. If we get to choose our purpose, as you suggest, then no one has a right to tell us our purpose is incorrect. Thus if my purpose is to kill as many people as I want, you can't tell me that my purpose has to be to fill a jail cell for the rest of my life. If my purpose is to be a corrupt politician, what gives you the right to interfere with that? Doesn't this lead to anarchy? I we evolved from a soup of inorganic matter and our purpose is just to exist, then we are demoted to little more than the survival of the fittest. Rich, healthy people must be the fittest. Then why are so many of them unhappy and feel they are missing something? It would also make sense for the fittest ones to get rid of the weaker ones who are wasting their resources, So: look out all you people on welfare and medicaid!...Sorry, but if you take your idea to its logical conclusion, it leaves a dismal picture and I can't buy it.

As I posted earlier on this thread, being an Atheist does not mean that one believes there is no "right and wrong." That is nihilism, you have completely confused the two again 🙂 Atheist's believe that you decide what is "right and wrong" not through superstition or because someone "told you so," but instead through logic, reason, and observation much like we do in science. An atheist wouldn't "kill as many people as they want" because, logically, that would mean that others would want to kill the atheist.

There are sections of the Bible that are non superstitious that sum this up very well, the whole "do onto other's as you would have done to yourself" mantra has been proven time and time again, and I'd imagine that almost all Atheist's out there probably live this as a core part of their life. The difference though between the Atheist and the Religious person is that Atheist's follow this not because of a superstitious belief in god or hell if they fail to follow it, instead they do it because they've observed that it works...those who "do onto other's" generally live longer, happier, and more successful lives than those who don't.

I also should not have to state the obvious but will, religious people kill corrupt etc. so religion clearly is not a deterrent to these sorts of behaviors. In fact I think that I'd be far more comfortable killing someone as a Catholic who could confess my sins and sit in heaven after the state executes me then as an atheist who believes that this is the only shot I have at life. The superstitious afterlife, in my mind actually serves as an incentive for me to behave poorly in this life as I can always try and do better in the next.

Finally, you're statement seems to forget that in this country the church and state are separate. The state is in charge of setting up consequences for murder's/corruption et al. Atheist's are not opposed to this so I'm not really sure why a world without religion has anything to do with anarchy.

Sean

It's not tough at all for me to conceive of that 100 year old house, after another few billion years, re-combining through random meteors, super novas, etc into another life form on some other planet. The same energy+time can create as well as destroy... they're both just processes of rearrangement of material).

I don't understand why religious people can not see the beauty in randomness... it allows all possibilities an equal chance of existence. But, in the same way that atheists don't live a life of anarchy (because it doesn't make any sense to live that way), only the possibilities that work for the given conditions survive.

Not so fast, rotorhead: there are over 15000 of these stones. And besides: "The surface of these rocks, however, has a varnish that is the result of bacteria and minute organisms which have adhered to them. A good black varnish or patina will take thousands of years to discolor and coat each stone. Etching these rocks would have removed the existing varnish, revealing the bare rock. Since these rocks have developed additional varnish in the grooves, it seems likely that they have were carved a long time ago. " - http://www.crystalinks.com/icastones.html Why would someone carve 15,000 stones just for a hoax? 1, 10 or a hundred I might believe. 1000? perhaps. 15,000? That gets less likely. Uschuya recantation in 1977 simply kept him out of jail and thus becomes suspect. I would want him to produce the dentist drill and show me how he made them if, indeed, he did. If he made 2 a day, it still would have taken him 2 years non-stop to make them all.

stiphy~ I'm not trying to be dense. What you seem to be saying is that atheists believe there is a "right and wrong" but that it is subjective and based on what they have found works. If a method of dealing with others works (like the do unto others rule), then other methods such as stealing, lying, cheating probably work less well. If atheists live in the most logical, reasonable way,doing what is right, why, then, would some atheists choose an illogical,unreasonable way to live? What we see is that humans, whether atheists or theists don't tend to live up to the moral law that they espouse. If all morality is nothing more than a human construct, then there is really no way to judge one moral code over another except by how well it works. In Papua-New Guinea cannibalism worked just fine until some westerners came in and made them stop.

"If all morality is nothing more than a human construct, then there is really no way to judge one moral code over another except by how well it works. In Papua-New Guinea cannibalism worked just fine until some westerners came in and made them stop."

What you refer to as "morality" is a set of rules that most people agree to live by because doing so benefits them directly. If I agree not to kill you and you agree not to kill me, we don't have to invest a lot of scarce resources (time and energy) trying to prevent being killed. Societies devise penalties to force compliance with the rules, because often during conflict, the short-sighted view suggests breaking the rules would lead to the best resolution, and objective penalties helps achieve rule compliance because few want to be incarcerated or put to death.

In fact, religion is evidence that morality is a human construct. There are a great many religions that advocate and decry a wide variety of behaviors, and not only do different religions disagree about right and wrong, but often with the same religious text there is disagreement. If religious texts are the word of a divine being, then why does every major religious text that addresses social behavior vary in the behaviors it condemns, and include non-compliance penalties that contemporary society deems barbaric? It is because the texts are the word of man, and reflect the customs during the time and culture in which they were written. Religion and its rules are a human construct to facilitate social living.

Yes, westerners have the might to alter cultural behavior in other sovereign nations, like cannibalism in Papua New Guinea, but just because they are able to exert xenophobic and imperialist control over another culture doesn't mean it is right to do so. As you note, cannibalism was "working fine" in PNG. There really is no objective evidence that cannibalism is right or wrong. There is only the idea that I don't want to be eaten and you don't want to be eaten, so we agree not to eat one another, and we don't have to invest a lot of scarce resources (time and energy) trying to prevent being eaten.

I would like to toss in that the Shroud of Turin is without a doubt a fake. I have been doing 3D modeling since 1991, and as anyone who has placed an image on a 3D surface, like a face, can tell you the image has to be distorted to look right on the model. The Shroud of Turin looks like a 2D photo, and not something that was wrapped around a 3D object.

Edit: here, on the lower right, is an example of what the Shroud of Turin should look like:

EngRMP: You are saying that the universe is like a kaleidoscope, constantly changing from one thing to another by happenstance rearrangement of molecules? If so, then "life" has no meaning other than to exist except, perhaps, for whatever meaning you want to give it. Is it beautiful? By what standard? Or does it just "happen?" If so, then as both you and Stiphy imply, cannibalism was ok in PNG because it worked in PNG. Slavery was ok because in ancient Greece and the southern US and Caribbean it worked. It is ok because in the world market, sex slaves today "work." Killing Jews in Germany is ok because the social contract, at that time and in that place called for it. Killing Christians is ok because it would make everybody's life so much easier. Morality implies a standard. Do you atheists want that standard to be the individual or society? I submit that humans are more than just an aggregate of molecules combining in a functional way to be ambulating, self-reproducing food processors and that there is a purpose greater than ourselves and our self- or even societal-interest.

Dntw8up: religions could be a basis for morality and could be a human construct as well. Most, if not all of them may be. But there is room for at least one of them NOT to be a human construct. I submit that such a one is to be found within the Christian traditions. I submit that morality cannot be subjective, a mere set of rules that some people agree to live by because they work and free us up to spend our energy on other matters. It must be objective, coming from outside of human experience, or it is worthless, chageable and nothing more than pragmatism and "situation ethics"

antiqueone,

resurrection is not a concept that unique to christianity, see this wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection

to read more about the history of different spiritual practices, check to see if they have wayne b. chandler's "ancient future" or joseph campbells' "hero with a thousand faces" in your local library.

i was raised as a christian, and i enjoy reading about the lives and histories of other civilizations. in fact the recurrent theme of resurrection goes back to long before there was christianity. among religious scholars, jesus christ is seen as an adept, one who walks among humans to assist us along our various ways. he is noted alongside osiris, the buddha, isis, and hermes.

i am fascinated by all that was until recent years unknown to me - all that has gone on before and will continue to be, into the future as we know it.

"I submit that morality cannot be subjective, a mere set of rules that some people agree to live by because they work and free us up to spend our energy on other matters. It must be objective, coming from outside of human experience, or it is worthless, chageable and nothing more than pragmatism and "situation ethics""

The rules are changeable and have changed. Ted Haggard admits regularly visiting a male prostitute who also provided him with methamphetamine, Jimmy Swaggart has repeatedly been caught with female prostitutes, and earlier this year catholic priest Alberto Cutie admitted to having a long time girlfriend -- so he switched to being an episcopalian priest and married her. These sorts of activities are so common among those who explicitly condemn these activities, that we are no longer surprised when we hear about the latest escapades of "people of the cloth." But the punishments religious texts advocate for these crimes are no longer implemented, because our society deems those punishments barbaric. If the religious texts are wrong about what constitutes a just punishment in contemporary society, perhaps they are also wrong about which behaviors should be punishable in contemporary society. The inability of religious texts to apply their ethics across time and across cultures results in the situation ethics currently practiced in contemporary society. It would be nice if there were a more objective source for ethics, but there is no evidence that such a source exists.

Being a member of FFRF I get their monthly newsletter, Freethought Today. It has a regular column every month called Black Collar Crime. This is really more than a column since it is usually 3-4 pages long every month. It lists all of the indictments and convictions of preachers, pastors, priests and other men and women of the cloth that have occurred in the US over the past month. Pretty amazing what some of these true believers do. It also amazes me that for decades the catholic church covered up for hundreds of pedophiles and none have every been prosecuted.

“Christians talk as though goodness was their idea but good behavior doesn't have any religious origin. Our prisons are filled with the devout.

I'd be more willing to accept religion, even if I didn't believe it, if I thought it made people nicer to each other but I don't think it does.”
-- Andy Rooney, Sincerely, Andy Rooney, 1999.

Here is some fuel to add to the fire, concerning the claimed, "only God believing people have morals" argument:

THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES - a BBC documentary that is very interesting. It compares neo-cons to fundamentalist Islamics.

If anyone does not want to watch the three hours this goes on for, please just watch the last ten minutes of the third part.

Note that it has not been shown (except at three film festivals) in the USofA.

It is in three parts, here are the BBC descriptions of each part and a link to play each part:

THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES 1: THE RISE OF THE POLITICS OF FEAR

"The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear" consists of three one-hour films, consisting mostly of a montage of archive footage with Curtis's narration.

The films compare the rise of the American Neo-Conservative movement and the radical Islamist movement, making comparisons on their origins and suggesting a strong connection between the two. More controversially, it argues that the threat of radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organized force of destruction, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is in fact a myth perpetrated by politicians in many countries — and particularly American Neo-Conservatives — in an attempt to unite and inspire their people following the failure of earlier, more utopian ideologies.

"The Power of Nightmares" has been praised by film critics in both Britain and the United States and have also been the subject of various critiques and criticisms from conservatives and progressives. The first episode explains the origins of Islamism and Neo-Conservatism. It shows Egyptian civil servant Sayyid Qutb, the founder of Islamism, visiting America to learn about the education system, but becoming disgusted with what he saw as a corruption of morals and virtues in western society through individualism. At the same time in the United States, a group of disillusioned liberals, including Irving Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz, look to the political thinking of Leo Strauss after the general failure of President Johnson's "Great Society". They come to the conclusion that the emphasis on individual liberty was the undoing of the plan. They envisioned restructuring America by uniting the American people against a common evil, and set about creating a mythical enemy.

http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=135

THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES 2: THE PHANTOM VICTORY

In the second episode, Islamist factions, rapidly falling under the more radical influence of Zawahiri and his rich Saudi acolyte Osama bin Laden, join the Neo-Conservative-influenced Reagan Administration to combat the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. They are successful in repulsing the Soviet armies and, when the Eastern Bloc begins to collapse in the late 1980s, both groups believe they were the primary architect of the "Evil Empire's" defeat and thus have the power to carry out their revolutions in their homelands. Curtis instead argues that the Soviets were on their last legs and were doomed to collapse without intervention.

Both factions' revolutions end in failure. The Neo-Conservatives' aspirations to use the United States Army's power for further destruction of evil are thrown off track by the ascent of George H. W. Bush to the American Presidency, followed by the 1992 election of Bill Clinton leaving them out of power. The Neo-Conservatives, with their conservative Christian allies, attempt to demonise Clinton throughout his presidency with various real and fabricated stories of corruption and immorality. To their disappointment, however, the American people do not acknowledge him as an enemy as they intended and remain indifferent to Clinton's alleged evils. The Islamist attempts at revolution end in massive bloodshed, leaving the Islamists without popular support. Zawahiri and bin Laden flee to the sufficiently safe Afghanistan and declare a new strategy; to fight Western-inspired moral decay they must deal a blow to its source: the United States.

http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=136

THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES 3: THE SHADOWS IN THE CAVE

Curtis argues that the forces under the direct command of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are in fact very small and mainstream image of al-Qaeda is a myth.

The final episode addresses the actual rise of al-Qaeda. Curtis argues that after their failed revolutions, bin Laden and Zawahiri had little or no popular support, let alone a serious complex organization of terrorists, and were dependent upon independent operatives to carry out their new call for jihad. The film instead shows the United States government wanting to prosecute bin Laden in absentia for the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings, and needing to prove him to be the head of a criminal organization to do so. They find a former associate of bin Laden, Jamal al-Fadl, and pay him to testify that bin Laden was the head of a massive terrorist organization called "al-Qaeda". With the September 11th attacks, Neo-Conservatives in the new Republican government of George W. Bush use this created concept of an organization to justify another crusade against a new evil enemy, leading to the launch of the War on Terror.

After the American invasion of Afghanistan fails to uproot the alleged terrorist network, the Neo-Conservatives focus inwards, searching unsuccessfully for terrorist "sleeper cells" in America. They then extend the war on "terror" to a war against general perceived evils with the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The ideas and tactics also spread to the United Kingdom where Tony Blair uses the threat of terrorism to give him a new moral authority. The repercussions of the Neo-Conservative strategy are also explored with an investigation of indefinitely-detained terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay, many allegedly taken on the word of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance without actual investigation on the part of the United States military, and other forms of "preemption" against non-existent and unlikely threats made simply on the grounds that the parties involved could later become a threat. Curtis also makes a specific attempt to debunk fears of a dirty bomb attack, and concludes by reassuring viewers that politicians will eventually have to admit that their claims of threats are void of reality.

The title of this episode appears to refer to Plato's allegory of the cave, which is mentioned in the course of this part of the film, and to the belief in the complex in Tora Bora.

http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=137

"You are saying that the universe is like a kaleidoscope, constantly changing from one thing to another by happenstance rearrangement of molecules?"

Yes, over long periods of time.`

" If so, then "life" has no meaning other than to exist except, perhaps, for whatever meaning you want to give it. Is it beautiful? By what standard? Or does it just "happen?""

Correct. We are born for no reason, we live for no reason, we will die for no reason. Our task is to figure out how to deal with those ugly truths without succumbing to depression and spending the rest of our lives shivering with despair beneath the covers of our beds. One thing I know for sure is that if I am going to contemplate my place in the universe I'd just as soon do it on a beach in the Caribbean with an umbrella drink in my hand.

"If so, then as both you and Stiphy imply, cannibalism was ok in PNG because it worked in PNG."

Cannibalism doesn't make one's life easier because one is aware that one may be the next to be cannibalized. Agreeing not to cannibalize makes lives easier, as one can then expend energy on pursuits other than preventing being cannibalized.

"Slavery was ok because in ancient Greece and the southern US and Caribbean it worked...It is ok because in the world market, sex slaves today "work. Killing Jews in Germany is ok because the social contract, at that time and in that place called for it. Killing Christians is ok because it would make everybody's life so much easier."

Slavery and ethnic cleansing are not a social contracts, because a contract implies agreement, whereas slavery and ethnic cleansing are forced upon unwilling participants.

"Morality implies a standard. Do you atheists want that standard to be the individual or society?"

The term morality does not necessarily imply a standard code of conduct, and certainly not some fixed standard across time and cultures. At best morality could be called an ideal, because in practice people do not obey religious tenets. Most religious texts claim murder wrong, but advocate the stoning to death of adulterers, among others. These texts get around the murder injunction by claiming it's stoning rather than murder, just as contemporary society says inmates are executed, and fetuses are aborted, and humans in a vegetative state receive euthanasia, and soldiers are sent to battle. There really are no absolute standards, just ideals, and exceptions to those ideals that are acceptable to people in various times and cultures.

"I submit that humans are more than just an aggregate of molecules combining in a functional way to be ambulating, self-reproducing food processors and that there is a purpose greater than ourselves and our self- or even societal-interest.""

Many people believe there is a purpose to human life, something greater than ourselves. That is what religions try to explain, but have so far been unable to do without invoking the supernatural. Atheists reject supernatural explanations in favor of rational explanations, and atheists adapt their understanding of the world when science and technology reveal new information. Most people of faith have their 21st century behavior dictated by ancient dogma written by some scribes who claimed their work was divinely inspired. I have heard contemporary writers refer to their work in the same terms, and I don't believe them either.

antiqueone,
I have to truly and sincerely thank you for staying civil when you're obviously in the midst of some pretty strong critics. I am really admiring your composure. I also am finding this thread to be the most enlightening on this subject... in my entire life I have not heard a better discussion on religion. Thank you, one and all.

To me it looks like "societies" evolve in very random ways as well... so does the economy, the legal system, science... you name it. It's frustrating at times (how did we end up with an idiot like Bush as a president... twice!!), and it's wonderful at times (how did we as a society finally agree to elect a black man as our president).

We are so lucky that we have random evolution: there have been all kinds of biological life forms that have been devastated by disease (plants, animals, humans); but because of random mutations, there are often (not always) some that survive and allow the species to survive.

Finally, I might be reading too much into what you're saying, but it sounds like you're saying that there is no beauty in the world without religion... "there is no purpose greater than ourselves", as you say. I submit that there are many things that are greater than ourselves as individuals (music, mathematics, art, nature, etc). I can't help but be amazed by what is around me, and that gives me the desire to be a good steward... granted, I'm a much better steward now, than when I was younger. I rejoice in anticipation of the next random wonder. That gives me plenty of purpose for living.

So, help me understand this from your perspective... are you saying that (in summary):
- Christianity comes from God
- Christianity provides you an afterlife
- that afterlife is the purpose of life on Earth
- the Bible says what you have to do on Earth to get to that afterlife

And, if you can, please help me understand why evolution can not be the work of God:
- if God had to have a plan to create life, do you think that evolution was considered, but dismissed for some reason? If so, for what reason?
- if God had to have a plan to create life, why isn't evolution (random mutations) as good as any other plan?
- what is it in Christianity that refutes evolution? Is there something specific in the Bible?

Wow mixing religion AND politics. Can't be any controversy here!

antiqueone,.......................To me it looks like "societies" evolve in very random ways as well... so does the economy, the legal system, science... you name it. It's frustrating at times (how did we end up with an idiot like Bush as a president... twice!!),
and it's wonderful at times (how did we as a society finally agree to elect a black man as our president).

............................

Why so?

Did not MLK Jr. not say he had a dream for a time when people would be judges by the content of their character and not the color of their skin if I recall correctly? How about in 8 years we judge Obama by his record and not the color of his skin?

EngRMP:
Thank you for your comment! It really is nice to have a serious conversation with people who profoundly disagree without devolving into rampages! "music, mathematics, art, nature, etc" are beautiful, but if you set any one of them or all of them up as ends unto themselves, it becomes your "god". I suspect you see these things as and end, we see them as a means to honor God.
My perspective.
Christianity comes from God. He has inserted Himself into His creation. He is knowable and knows us. He is intimately aware of our lives and concerned to grow us spiritually.
There is an afterlife. We either spend it in communion with God or are separated from God for eternity.
The purpose of life on earth is to Glorify God (Westminster Confession) which means that we are to live life not for ourselves but in all we do we are to bring honor to the Creator. We are called to "be perfect" which means to live according to the standards in the Bible. Only those who meet those standards and are perfect can commune with God, who is perfection. However,we are flawed humans and unable to meet the criteria perfectly. As Paul said, "I do that which I would not do and that which I would not do, I do." Jesus, God living on earth, paid the price for our failures to live up to that standard and by accepting his sacrifice, we can be made perfect through His perfection and thus through His provision, we are able to commune with God for eternity.

The Bible sets the moral standard for living, reveals through the old testament Man's inability to live up to that standard, describes the punishments and the consequences for not living up to the standard (the wages of sin is death), describes the coming of the savior, describes the new covenant with God's people and describes how we should interact with others based on our relationship with Jesus. It describes the eternal consequences of our choices on earth. And we do have choices!

As for "evolution" and God: I think it is clear that there is variation within a species. There is also variation within a genus ( you can breed a poodle with a collie and get a colloodle, but a horse and a donkey make a mule that cannot reproduce!) What we don't see is variation from one genus to another. Dogs don't become cats. If there is macro-evolution, I don't think it is random: a million monkeys all typing all their lives are not going to create the works of Shakespeare no matter how long you keep them at it. I get frustrated with evolutionists who use fraud to perpetuate their beliefs: those old pictures of the gypsy moths changing color in England during the industrial revolution were faked. The progression from "ape to man" has at least one picture of a being that was totally made up!
Does the Bible refute evolution? If you take Genesis literally, it would seem to. However it also says that "to God a day is as a thousand years."
I suspect that either: 1. The Genesis story is exactly accurate, or 2. Genesis is a story told briefly about a prolonged period of time, simplified so that even uneducated people can get a grasp of it, but also enough so that more astute people can see that the order of creation is accurate or 3. the dating methods we use in science are somehow flawed. or 4. Something in between.
Can it be random if God exists? If there is one errant molecule in creation, then God is not God. In point of fact, if you look through a microscope, you find a microcosm (order within order) and if you look through a telescope, you find order again in the macrocosm (planetary systems inside of solar systems inside of galactic systems). These cannot randomly exist: there is no design without a designer.

Something as simple as the Bird and the Bee's. Science can't figure out why a little Bee can fly (his the
Bee that is, wings are too small to lift his fat little body). I Know a bee can fly, the bee knows he can fly, science doesn't know why, maybe just blind faith.

As for "evolution" and God.

Do you think your god is too stupid to create evolution?

Oh yeah, that's right - we are special, mini-gods made in the image of God. So any science is flat out wrong - We Are Special!

Lizard,
Welcome back. You are just a little behind in your reading.

"People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly," Altshuler said. "We were finally able to put this one to rest. We do have the tools to understand bee flight and we can use science to understand the world around us."

Full article here.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/060110_bee_fight.html

If a scientist doesn't understand something he says so and performs more observation and experimentation until he does. If a true believer doesn't understand something he attributes it to god and accepts that man was not meant to understand the miracles of god.

I prefer science. Look at all of the amazing inventions that have come from science. What has religion given us?

What has religion given us?

Blind faith.

Rotorhead,
New Discovery for Science, something that I Knew and the Bee Knew. Discovery only a month ago, I was a little busy. I Also Know that God still loves you cause he didn't make no Junk!

Oh I didn't answer your last question. How about the biblical Ten commandments.

I like the one that says: you shall not murder, unless you call it stoning, and have a good reason like the stonee is an adulterer.