[T-o dore]

(Original post by Scientific Calculator)
You have hit the nail on the head. The world thrives on nothing BUT cultural bias.

I don't think thats true; its certainly a factor, but moreso in some cases than others. One factor must be considered; whilst the UK is syncretic and incorporates a cross-pollination of ideologies and worldviews, a state such as Iran's, or Saudi Arabia's, is theocratic, driven by an overarching and united ideology and extrinsic communal observances. This means that 'culture' is more strongly identified in specific societies, which suggests a variety of strengths of 'cultural bias'. I would imagine, furthermore, that a theocratic state (or a totalitarian state) would have a much stronger bias to block off differences in opinion and alternative ideologies. One obvious example is the banning of any liberally-leaning websites by the Iranian government - a measure preventing exposure to liberal ideas such as improvements in women's rights.

It then follows that the scientific/academic communities in more liberal and democratic societies are not motivated by any such cultural bias, especially when compared to the academic communities of many Islamic states, who are highly state-censored, and the majority of whom are more like preachers than neutral academics.

(Original post by Scientific Calculator)
Even if evolution was wrong, we would never hear about it here because of atheism - withouth evolution there can be no atheism, for, as you rightly said, there is no other solely scientific explanation without God. In the same way, you would never hear about it if there were any holes in creationism in religion-oriented countries.

I also disagree with everything you say here. Atheism is not an established system of beliefs or a 'faith' in any way - in fact that is exactly what it is not. Believing in evolution (a theory backed by an elephantine amount of evidence, with zero evidence to the contrary) is neither a necessary or sufficient condition to become or be an atheist. You can be atheist and not 'believe' in evolution, although you would have to be monsterously ignorant, or otherwise indoctrinated and cut off from the mountains of true evidence.

What I am saying is that atheists are not motivated by an 'atheist bias' to ONLY provide or demonstrate evidence FOR evolution, because the acceptance of evolution does not inevitably lead to the loss of faith (just look at the leader of the human genome project, a pious Christian).

[Scientific Calculator]

(Original post by T-o dore)
What I am saying is that atheists are not motivated by an 'atheist bias' to ONLY provide or demonstrate evidence FOR evolution, because the acceptance of evolution does not inevitably lead to the loss of faith (just look at the leader of the human genome project, a pious Christian).

Agreed.
But it nonetheless strikes out the need for God, thus making it easier to deny religion.
Which would encourage atheists to pursue evolution with even greater zeal, with the ultimate motive to deny God because evolution permits such a move.

[jhs08]

(Original post by Scientific Calculator)
Agreed.
But it nonetheless strikes out the need for God, thus making it easier to deny religion.
Which would encourage atheists to pursue evolution with even greater zeal, with the ultimate motive to deny God because evolution permits such a move.

I don't think there is a 'need' for God without evolution. What was to stop people thinking that we've just always existed, with no begining?

Seriously, understand this: evolution, god - completely 100% unrelated subjects.

[T-o dore]

(Original post by Scientific Calculator)
Without EVOLUTION there can be NO atheism

Do you know the definition of atheism? The rejection of belief in a god/gods. Therefore, you, like every other human in history, are an atheist for the thousands and thousands of humanity's various fantastical inventions and aetiological myths apart from your own.

Evolution, I repeat more forcefully, is neither a necessary or sufficient condition for atheism. You CAN be a Christian and accept that evolution happens. 'Atheism' is not a framework of beliefs in to which evolution is a basis. It just so happens that most atheists recognize that evolution is obviously true. Perhaps this is because, on average atheists have higher IQ, or otherwise because the 'design' argument for the existence of God is entirely deflated by the power of evolution.

I'll give you one pre-eminent example; David Hume, 18th century empiricist and ATHEIST BEFORE DARWIN.

If you want to see the evidence, all you have to do is go on a few websites, or better still go to your local library/amazon, and get a few books by the most respected scientists (in fact ANY real scientist) for irrefutable and undeniable evidence that evolution happens. I believe R. Dawkins will be releasing a book soon for just this purpose; dispelling the ignorant and harmful myths promulgated by delusional new-earthers desperate to blind themselves and those around them.

[Scientific Calculator]

(Original post by jhs08)
evolution, god - completely 100% unrelated subjects.

Completely and utterly untrue. Ever heard of the evolution vs creationism debate? You would have to be monstrously ignorant not to see the connection.

[T-o dore]

(Original post by Scientific Calculator)
Agreed.
But it nonetheless strikes out the need for God, thus making it easier to deny religion.
Which would encourage atheists to pursue evolution with even greater zeal, with the ultimate motive to deny God because evolution permits such a move.

I don't think that argument is logical.

I reject your first premise - for example famous Catholic political theorist and theologian Dinesh D'Souza does not deny evolution, but still firmly believes in the need for God as a way of making sense of our morality, and a way of explaining the origins of the universe.

Whether is makes it easier to deny God or not is irrelavent to the question of whether it is true or not.

Please would you explain why evolution leads to the rejection of God?

[T-o dore]

(Original post by Scientific Calculator)
Completely and utterly untrue. Ever heard of the evolution vs creationism debate? You would have to be monstrously ignorant not to see the connection.

Ok I might be seeing where you are coming from.

Evolution DISPROVES the idea that God created homo sapiens 6000 years ago in their developed state. If you believe in THAT God, you will have to change your ideological specs somewhat

[Thatcran]

(Original post by Scientific Calculator)
Even if evolution was wrong, we would never hear about it here because of atheism - withouth evolution there can be no atheism, for, as you rightly said, there is no other solely scientific explanation without God. In the same way, you would never hear about it if there were any holes in creationism in religion-oriented countries.

That's a horrible comparison.

The difference between secular (atheistic) countries like the United Kingdom and Sweden and 'religiously-orientated' countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran is that scientists (and the public in general) enjoy a certain degree of freedom in the former countries, so if there's evidence against evolution, we would hear about it. Indeed, Richard Dawkins (and other staunch atheists) has stated on numerous occasions that he is more than willing to change his opinion if he ever comes across a convincing argument.

[T-o dore]

Ok, here are 10 of the many reasons why I am not, and will hopefully never be, religious

1) Every argument for the existence of God is fundamentally flawed and unconvincing

2) The existence of moral evil, natural evil, and the profound suffering of all sentient beings (including animals) de facto disproves the existence of the Judeo-Christian concept of God (in my opinion, anyway).

3) The acceptance of a religion is hugely affected by social circumstances, which is entirely dependent on luck. If one was born in to a Muslim family, the chances of becoming a Muslim would be far greater than a child born in to a Jewish family. This does not disprove any religion, however it makes any one religion much more difficult to accept on the merit of it’s ideas alone.

4) There are thousands of different faiths in the world (hundreds of thousands in the history of the world), most of them grossly contradicting each other. Therefore, whichever way one ‘cuts the cake’, a huge proportion of people who believe sincerely in the veracity of their worldview must logically be wrong, ad there is no A Priori reason to suppose one ‘god’ more likely than another.

5) Of course, given that there could literally be billions of different combinations of doctrines and beliefs, the likelihood that ALL of them are wrong DWARVES the likelihood that any one of them is right.

6) The components of religious belief are served by well-known neurological circuits which mediate evolutionary adaptive cognitive functions (for example: ‘decoupled cognition’, the principle of ‘minimal counter-intuitive worlds’, and the Freudian concept of transference). In fact, recent experiments conducted by the American National Institute of Health suggest will have produced a complete neuroscience of religion.

7) Dualism, the belief in a separate and substantially different ‘soul’ (put forward by most religions), it a highly objectionable and philosophically incoherent. There is evidence to suppose that earthworms have ‘consciousness’, for example.

8) I do not need to resource ‘meaning’ and ‘value’ in this life from a ‘mind forg’d manacle’ (as G. Elliot described religion), but from the value I can make for myself.

9) The convergence between knowledge of the natural world and revelation is so feeble when it could have been, given an all-powerful God, so robust. This is one of the LEAST fantastical inconsistencies one must blindly accept to be a Christian.

10) Finally, there is absolutely no reason to suppose any religion true

[Angel of Caffeine]

(Original post by Scientific Calculator)
Of course it doesn't. My point was that even evolution (although I, along with a large proportion of the world, believe its a load of dog)

Argument ad populatum?

I urge you to look at that list I compiled for you if you doubt evolution. That's a lot of things you have to deny. A lot of tangible realities.

One thing I don't think I remembered to add is that if you reject evolution, you're rejecting the scientific method that produced it. Know what else that produced? I'll take a very obvious one: the theory of gravity. Evolution is much more well-developed a theory than gravity is.

I'm very sorry because I suspect you're actually a pretty bright person, but there is no excuse for misunderstanding evolution so blatantly in the age of the internet. Not only do you have all this information at your fingertips, but I've provided you with a pile of evidence to sift through.

is not completely wholesome without the need for God, due to the inadequate explanation given for the formation of the first cells that began life in the very first instance.

I wouldn't call abiogenesis inadequate at all. Then again, I think it's already been demonstrated that you lack knowledge of some of this stuff (I don't mean to insult you, most people aren't very scientifically literate at all). Would you like me to provide you with some information on abiogenesis? I'm sure I could dig some stuff up.

The fact that evolution happens is, however, unrelated to how that first single-cell organism came around. Even if we had no clue (which we do), we could still test and verify that evolution happens.

[Angel of Caffeine]

Also, while I'm at it, even if you reject abiogenesis and decide that G-d created the first single-cell organism, why can't you accept evolution as happening from there?

If your problem is with abiogenesis, then your problem is with abiogenesis. Attack it where you feel it's wrong, not where we know it's right.

[Angel of Caffeine]

(Original post by Scientific Calculator)
Completely and utterly untrue. Ever heard of the evolution vs creationism debate? You would have to be monstrously ignorant not to see the connection.

There hasn't been an actual "debate" in decades. There are scientists dealing with science and religiously-oriented nutcases trying (and failing) to disprove them. Actually, they're doing scientists a service, as part of the scientific method is trying rigorously to disprove your hypothesis. S'the fun part.

Also, BIG point: Ever heard of theistic evolutionists?

[Angel of Caffeine]

(Original post by Scientific Calculator)
Agreed.
But it nonetheless strikes out the need for God, thus making it easier to deny religion.
Which would encourage atheists to pursue evolution with even greater zeal, with the ultimate motive to deny God because evolution permits such a move.

There are other atheistic hypotheses as to how we got here, but none of them have mountains and mountains (and mountains and mountains) of evidence piled behind them, with no evidence whatsoever on any opposing team.

I think you'll find most atheists who accept science accepted science before they rejected belief in a deity.

And you also make the (false) supposition that there was need for G-d in the first place. There isn't a real theory for G-d, just an uproved and unprovable hypothesis that's been sitting on a shelf getting dusty for a while.

[Angel of Caffeine]

I'm sorry to bother you, and it's great that you shared your views, but I'd just like to address a few things in your text! I can't help it, really, I'm just drawn to anything discussing religion or science. :P

Hope you don't mind.

(Original post by T-o dore)
Ok, here are 10 of the many reasons why I am not, and will hopefully never be, religious

1) Every argument for the existence of God is fundamentally flawed and unconvincing

This isn't a counter-point, but to be fair you probably don't know every argument for the existence of G-d. However, I agree that every argument I have come across (and I don't doubt all those you have come across) have been flawed.

2) The existence of moral evil, natural evil, and the profound suffering of all sentient beings (including animals) de facto disproves the existence of the Judeo-Christian concept of God (in my opinion, anyway).

Ah, this isn't necessarily true. The problem of evil is a big issue for me, but thinkers such as Augustine and Iranaeus actually consider that not to be an issue.

Also, if you happen to believe in free will (which I don't), then you can account moral evil on G-d wishing to give us freedom to return to Him out of love (rather than forcing humans to worship Him).

3) The acceptance of a religion is hugely affected by social circumstances, which is entirely dependent on luck. If one was born in to a Muslim family, the chances of becoming a Muslim would be far greater than a child born in to a Jewish family. This does not disprove any religion, however it makes any one religion much more difficult to accept on the merit of it’s ideas alone.

Totally agreed, but it should be noted that with the use of "Jewish" as an example, even Jewish atheists are considered Jewish (by most). Nothing against your point, but you shouldn't use Judaism as an example because it's more complicated than most religious labels, and it's not entirely clear whether you're speaking of religiously Jewish parents or non-religiously Jewish parents (the statistics, I'm sure, would show a difference).

4) There are thousands of different faiths in the world (hundreds of thousands in the history of the world), most of them grossly contradicting each other.

Actually, you'll find most religions agree on the fundamental aspects. E.g. monotheistic religions mostly agree on one G-d that is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Eastern religions mostly beleive in polytheism/pantheism (with an occasional side of non-theism), and have a reincarnation slant, whereby your good deeds bring you higher in some scale (social/animalistic).

Therefore, whichever way one ‘cuts the cake’, a huge proportion of people who believe sincerely in the veracity of their worldview must logically be wrong, ad there is no A Priori reason to suppose one ‘god’ more likely than another.

Actually, a large group of the non-correct religions probably have correct ideas in their religions. E.g. If Judaism is correct then Islam and Christianity both have some things right, too. Just because a lot of people have to be wrong for X to be right doesn't make X any less right (think about how many people had to be wrong when X was the shape of the Earth).

However, if you're just using it as a reason why picking the right religion is a highly improbable task, then yes, I see your point.

5) Of course, given that there could literally be billions of different combinations of doctrines and beliefs, the likelihood that ALL of them are wrong DWARVES the likelihood that any one of them is right.

I think again you should've taken into account that many religions can be right on certain aspects. For example, the liklihood of there being a G-d (or more than one) is more likely than a specific religion being entirely correct.

6) The components of religious belief are served by well-known neurological circuits which mediate evolutionary adaptive cognitive functions (for example: ‘decoupled cognition’, the principle of ‘minimal counter-intuitive worlds’, and the Freudian concept of transference). In fact, recent experiments conducted by the American National Institute of Health suggest will have produced a complete neuroscience of religion.

This point I liked very much. I think you should have followed it up with "I'm just not wired to believe in G-d", though. :P

7) Dualism, the belief in a separate and substantially different ‘soul’ (put forward by most religions), it a highly objectionable and philosophically incoherent. There is evidence to suppose that earthworms have ‘consciousness’, for example.

Perhaps there is a slant in many of the religions that affect you, but there are many religious strands of thought that do not rely on dualism of body/soul. Catholicism, traditionally, is not dualistic, neither, arguably, are many Eastern religions.

8) I do not need to resource ‘meaning’ and ‘value’ in this life from a ‘mind forg’d manacle’ (as G. Elliot described religion), but from the value I can make for myself.

I have nothing against this point. It's probably one of your best.

9) The convergence between knowledge of the natural world and revelation is so feeble when it could have been, given an all-powerful God, so robust. This is one of the LEAST fantastical inconsistencies one must blindly accept to be a Christian.

I think (don't quote me on this) that most Christians believe that G-d does not, eh, 'show off his powers' (if you will) because He wants people to believe in Him out of faith that He exists, and not because He has proven it in actions to each individual.

10) Finally, there is absolutely no reason to suppose any religion true

Depends what you mean by "reason". There is no evidence any religion is true, but some people find reason to believe in their own experiences and feelings toward the world. Just because there is no reason for you does not mean there's no reason.

Now, here's a better way to produce the point that you're making: "Faith is by definition irrational, and therefore there is no rationality to faith." This appeals to a modern audience who (mostly) hold being rational in high regard.

Sorry if I came off as rude. I think I mostly just refined your points, rather than tried to refute them.

[T-o dore]

Thanks for replying! I'm glad you asked me to elaborate - I didn't want to ramble on for ages so only asserted my points in a very undeveloped format.

(Original post by Angel of Caffeine)
This isn't a counter-point, but to be fair you probably don't know every argument for the existence of G-d

Ok I'll clarify: the ontological, the cosmologial (in all its forms), the 'moral', the 'natural law', the teleological, Aquinas' 5 ways are the main arguments used by theists (in varying formats). I believe they all fail. I haven't actually heard of any others...

(Original post by Angel of Caffeine)
The problem of evil is a big issue for me, but thinkers such as Augustine and Iranaeus actually consider that not to be an issue.

Yeah Im quite familiar with many different theodicies - Ireneus, Hick, Augustine, Process, monism, Aquinas, biblical thought, DZ Phillips, Swinburne, and all forms of the 'free will defense'. Whilst these arguments seem to vaguely cover human moral evil, they do not really explain natural evil, and do not even approach explaining the suffering of animals (for example, a polar bear that dies from hunger).

(Original post by Angel of Caffeine)
Actually, you'll find most religions agree on the fundamental aspects.

I suppose, but the actual content of the religions are very different. Muslims, for example, believe that those who deny Islam will burn for eternity.

(Original post by Angel of Caffeine)
However, if you're just using it as a reason why picking the right religion is a highly improbable task, then yes, I see your point.

Yeah - this is what I was trying to say.

(Original post by Angel of Caffeine)
I think again you should've taken into account that many religions can be right on certain aspects. For example, the liklihood of there being a G-d (or more than one) is more likely than a specific religion being entirely correct.

I don't think a religion can be right on some things and wrong on others. Homologously, religions teach that 'our way is the right way and all others are wrong' - you cannot hope for salvation if you adhere to the wrong belief system.

(Original post by Angel of Caffeine)
Catholicism, traditionally, is not dualistic, neither, arguably, are many Eastern religions.

Really? How does Catholicism account for the afterlife? Physical resurrection?! I know that Hick has an idea about 'reconstitution through resurrection', but surely that isn't believed? I fully agree that Hinduism and Buddhism are not body/soul dualists in the traditional sense. However, with Judeo-Christian religions, surely if there is to be immortality, there must be a spirit or inner identity which lives on?

(Original post by Angel of Caffeine)
'Show off his powers' (if you will) because He wants people to believe in Him out of faith that He exists, and not because He has proven it in actions to each individual.

Fair enough, I just find that very hard to believe. Couldn't God have revealed the law of relativity, or quantum mechanics, or have etched the ten commandments in massive letters upon the moon?!

(Original post by Angel of Caffeine)
Depends what you mean by "reason". There is no evidence any religion is true, but some people find reason to believe in their own experiences and feelings toward the world. Just because there is no reason for you does not mean there's no reason.

But what can we base our knowledge on if not empirical data? And how can our 'inner reason' be a reliable guide when equally intelligent and honest people can profess to believing in completely different religions based on their 'own experiences and feelings'?

Sorry if I come across as aggressive or anything, theology-based discussions can get like that!

[Angel of Caffeine]

(Original post by T-o dore)
Thanks for replying! I'm glad you asked me to elaborate - I didn't want to ramble on for ages so only asserted my points in a very undeveloped format.

That's totally cool. Theological debates are what this board is for!

Ok I'll clarify: the ontological, the cosmologial (in all its forms), the 'moral', the 'natural law', the teleological, Aquinas' 5 ways are the main arguments used by theists (in varying formats). I believe they all fail. I haven't actually heard of any others...

LOL did you just study philosophy? Because I swear that's the list on the curriculum. :P And there will inevitably be other arguments that haven't made it to the big screen. Not that I'm suggesting that they're any better, just that you can't brush off all arguments since you can't really claim to know and have refuted them all.

Yeah Im quite familiar with many different theodicies - Ireneus, Hick, Augustine, Process, monism, Aquinas, biblical thought, DZ Phillips, Swinburne, and all forms of the 'free will defense'. Whilst these arguments seem to vaguely cover human moral evil, they do not really explain natural evil, and do not even approach explaining the suffering of animals (for example, a polar bear that dies from hunger).

LOLOMG I just found the "quote" button. I'm been typing it out all this time. >:|

I believe Iranaeus spoke about natural evil, actually, as an obstacle of sorts.

And while I think that none of these theodicies cover the sheer amount of suffering in the world (have you ever heard Vardy's lecture where he makes you shut your eyes and takes you to Auschwitz? Amazing!), this may be seen as an emotional response rather than a rational one.

Though, ooh, suffering of animals is interesting. Is it not possible that our "sin" affects them as it affects the rest of the environment? Or that it's our mishandling of the environment that causes certain imbalances in nature, causing the polar bear to die of hunger?

I suppose, but the actual content of the religions are very different. Muslims, for example, believe that those who deny Islam will burn for eternity.

Which is in agreement with Christianity.

If you simplify religions, then they all end up with the same fundamental teachings because they're all so intertwined. The famous teaching of the Torah on one leg? "Love your fellow like yourself. The rest is commentary."

Yeah - this is what I was trying to say.

Ah, but it's still not an argument against any religious reality, simply against the likelihood of a certain person's religious beliefs reflecting said reality.

I don't think a religion can be right on some things and wrong on others. Homologously, religions teach that 'our way is the right way and all others are wrong' - you cannot hope for salvation if you adhere to the wrong belief system.

Eee, I can't exactly agree with this point. Being a Masorti Jew, I'm perfectly willing to accept that man had a hand in the writing on the Torah and therefore it can be flawed, and you'll find the vast majority of all religions are not much stricter.

Also, re: bolded text: that depends entirely on which religion offers salvation. Sorry I keep using Judaism as an example, but we believe that the righteous of all nations will inherit the world to come. ... So you can adopt the wrong belief system and still "hope for salvation" in some religions. In some Eastern religions, you can climb higher on the social/animal structure by being a good, peaceful person, regardless of belief system.

Your argument there seems routed in Islam and Christianity.

Really? How does Catholicism account for the afterlife? Physical resurrection?! I know that Hick has an idea about 'reconstitution through resurrection', but surely that isn't believed? I fully agree that Hinduism and Buddhism are not body/soul dualists in the traditional sense. However, with Judeo-Christian religions, surely if there is to be immortality, there must be a spirit or inner identity which lives on?

Catholicism traditionally adheres to the Beatific Vision, which (as far as I understand it) means that you will have a new body in Heaven. Your soul never exists outside a body.

I know someone who's asked: Not even Hick believes Hick's ideas.

Fair enough, I just find that very hard to believe. Couldn't God have revealed the law of relativity, or quantum mechanics, or have etched the ten commandments in massive letters upon the moon?!

If G-d had revealed quantum mechanics, d'you think that the Israelites would have had a clue what He was teaching them? G-d instead taught them how best to keep clean to survive the lives they had to endure out there in the Middle East, and it was damn effective (I mean, we're still here today!).

By the way, I don't mean to say it was necessarily G-d who did that. I'm still pretty open to other ideas. But those were some damn good rules, considering.

And LOL I totally didn't read your idea about etching them on the moon until now! XD Brilliant idea. If I'm ever G-d, that's what I'll do!

But to your point: He, uh, did make a bunch of plagues and part a sea. It's not like he was lacking in the miraculous events at this point.

But what can we base our knowledge on if not empirical data? And how can our 'inner reason' be a reliable guide when equally intelligent and honest people can profess to believing in completely different religions based on their 'own experiences and feelings'?

I'm not saying it's a reliable guide, just that people often do have reasons to believe in G-d. Just because they are not based in rational, empirical form like you and I would prefer in order to test it doesn't mean it's not a reason all the same.

Sorry if I come across as aggressive or anything, theology-based discussions can get like that!

No, no, it's fine! I'm starting a theology degree in September, so I obviously love the debate. And you've been calm and thoughtful thus far, so there's no need to worry. :P

Plus this is so more my forte than the science of the last things I posted. I'm fine with science, but it's my mother and sister who're the scientists, not me. Nope, I prefer my nice little theological discussions! :P

[Hypnotic_Me]

(Original post by Scientific Calculator)
You have hit the nail on the head. The world thrives on nothing BUT cultural bias. Even if evolution was wrong, we would never hear about it here because of atheism - withouth evolution there can be no atheism, for, as you rightly said, there is no other solely scientific explanation without God. In the same way, you would never hear about it if there were any holes in creationism in religion-oriented countries.

At the end of the day, the world is driven by media, by bias, by propaganda. We're all in the same position, trying to find the truth amidst a heavily opinionated world...all we can do in this never-ending dogma is respect that we will never know.

I find your attitude quite disturbing. Firstly, I find it strange that you seem to think that if the theory of evolution was one day disproven then the only possible explanation is God and creationism. This seems fairly narrowminded to me. Second and foremost, I hardly think that atheism is based solely on the theory of evolution, atheism is the disbelief in any and all Gods, as the creation of the universe is not the function of every known God, your logic seems to fall short. I also find it interesting that if the theory of evolution was proven to be incorrect that we wouldn't hear abuot it, that is complete drivel, of course we'd hear about it would probably make, well at least the 11 o'clock news. You're right, we will never know the answers to these questions....IF we were to all adopt that very attitude. Besides, sometimes it's not just about the answer but the means by which you attempt to find the answer hold great value too.

[angelicgemini]

Okay, well I kind of believe that God is in nature and that all of humanity has a bit of God, as we can see into the spiritual world, also we control our own behavior.

Also, a quote I made up, it could be seen as philosophical:

'I do not believe politics or religion, I believe in others.', It's saying that well I believe in other people can do what they like, they can be good or bad, as we have the capability of doing it, also that we have free will.

[Hypnotic_Me]

(Original post by T-o dore)
Yeah Im quite familiar with many different theodicies - Ireneus, Hick, Augustine, Process, monism, Aquinas, biblical thought, DZ Phillips, Swinburne, and all forms of the 'free will defense'. Whilst these arguments seem to vaguely cover human moral evil, they do not really explain natural evil, and do not even approach explaining the suffering of animals (for example, a polar bear that dies from hunger).

Hmm, I can see your point about the whole 'natural evil' thing, but I've never considered things that happen naturally as evil. For something to be evil it has to have a conscious, malicious desire to inflict some form of detriment to something.

A polar bear dying of hunger, though sad isn't evil, it's just natural selection or the polar bears misfortune.

By the same token, I wouldn't call rain that provides us with water with which to live a 'natural good' despite its good effects on most life forms on this plannet. It's just nature.

[jhs08]

(Original post by Scientific Calculator)
Completely and utterly untrue. Ever heard of the evolution vs creationism debate? You would have to be monstrously ignorant not to see the connection.

Yes, and this argument is put forward by people such as Dawkins on one side and the Discovery Institute on the other, who do not see that evolution has no comment to make on the existence of god. Why do you think some of the world's leading evolutionists are devout Christians?