Are Americans really this stupid?

[Ezekiel]

they left where they were and came here to escape persecution for their beliefs, the majority of which were rooted in religion. . .they saw fit to separate church and state because that wasn't the way it was in the place(s) that they came from and they realized that was a very baaaaadddd thing because the "church", when left to it's own devices can be just as much (if not more) corrupt and power mad than any other organization. . .and they use the word God about 10,000 times throughout the governing documents that they wrote. . .i'm getting my information from history books, the declaration of independence, the constitution, et al. . .i'm not sure where you're getting yours from. . .but, i'm sure you're right. . .

America was indeed founded by not only Christians but also the Masons and Rosicrucians. The Masons holding the greatest power. This is still true today.

The actual word "God" is only mentioned I believe one time in the Declaration of Independance. However, I believe the word "Creator" is used 3 times.

And while I amy be mistaken neither God or Jesus are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Nor are they mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

However, the God is used the Pledge of Allegiance.


Blessing,

 

[Mr. dB]

However, the God is used the Pledge of Allegiance.

God was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the early 1950s.

For that matter, the Pledge was not always an official US oath, or whatever it is. It was originally composed for a needlepoint design for moms to make to hang on the wall in the kids' room.

 

[bentoverrow]

There's actually no proof to support that claim. When Darwin died on April 19th, 1882 There was no one outside of his own family that had access to him during his last illness. There was a Lady Hope (Elizabeth Reid Cotton) who was an Evangelist and did indeed visit him in sept or Oct of 1881. However, there is no actual proof that he recanted his theories. A fact his own family supports. That he indeed never recanted his theories. He was however an Anglican.


Blessings,

Charles knows what he said. Even if his family didnt admit it. But who cares its garbage anyways..

 

[javaguru]

The harsh reality is:

1) Evolution is true.

2) Evolution still can't explain how we got here.

I don't believe some gray-bearded deity whisked us into existence. But I also don't believe a couple hundred thousand amino acids lined-up perfectly on the backside of a perfectly imperfect crystal and got stuck by just the right cosmic ray either.

When it comes to the origins of life, I'm perfectly fine accepting the fact that we just don't know right now. Trying to overgeneralize a fundamentally good theory such as evolutionary adaptation to explain the origins of life seems just as silly as the ridiculous religiously-based theories.

Sometimes it's A-OK to not have the answer.

Actually, the point of most of my posts on religion/science are that it's OK to not have an answer but religion always has an answer. Even the most hallowed theories in science have been shown to break down under certain circumstances...Gravity on the cosmic scale is a prime example. When have you heard a theist admit any wavering on their God Hypothesis?

 

[mrplunkey]

Actually, the point of most of my posts on religion/science are that it's OK to not have an answer but religion always has an answer. Even the most hallowed theories in science have been shown to break down under certain circumstances...Gravity on the cosmic scale is a prime example. When have you heard a theist admit any wavering on their God Hypothesis?

Religion's answer to the origins of life seems just as silly to me as a die-hard evolutionists thoughts on the matter. I know plenty of religions people who freely admit that they see the story of creationism as an allegory and they have no idea what actually happened.

Here's what makes no sense to me whatsoever: A pro-evolution person attacking religion. Let's suppose for a moment that evolution is 100% dead-on correct. Then that person would obviously understand the power of adaptations over long periods of time and would also understand the devastating impact of overloading the adaptive process. Our brains clearly evolved within a religious paradigm. Now we can debate whether it was over 10,000 years, 50,000 years or even 200,000 years -- but we're still talking about relatively vast amounts of time.

Given that, why in the world would an evolutionist attack religion? Would you throw a million people into the ocean thinking at least one of them might sprout gills? Would you put a million of them in an oxygen-depleted atmosphere thinking at least one of them would learn to use nitrogen instead? How about a fire? Let's throw a million people into an incinerator and hope one of them adapts with fire-resistant skin. Any competent evolutionist will quickly recognize that the process doesn't work like that -- so why do we think it would work that way within our psyche?

I personally believe in evolution, but I'm highly skeptical of anyone who supports the theory yet seems to think we're going to go from a society built around a religious framework as little as 200-300 years ago to an areligious society in anything less than a thousand years. To me, it seems like an anti-religion evolutionist is simply a person who abhors religion and is looking for a convenient scientific theory with which to justify their belief system.

But hey, that's just my two cents

 

[chris302001]

God was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the early 1950s.

For that matter, the Pledge was not always an official US oath, or whatever it is. It was originally composed for a needlepoint design for moms to make to hang on the wall in the kids' room.

goddamn you're old.

 

[javaguru]

Religion's answer to the origins of life seems just as silly to me as a die-hard evolutionists thoughts on the matter. I know plenty of religions people who freely admit that they see the story of creationism as an allegory and they have no idea what actually happened.

Here's what makes no sense to me whatsoever: A pro-evolution person attacking religion. Let's suppose for a moment that evolution is 100% dead-on correct. Then that person would obviously understand the power of adaptations over long periods of time and would also understand the devastating impact of overloading the adaptive process. Our brains clearly evolved within a religious paradigm. Now we can debate whether it was over 10,000 years, 50,000 years or even 200,000 years -- but we're still talking about relatively vast amounts of time.

Given that, why in the world would an evolutionist attack religion? Would you throw a million people into the ocean thinking at least one of them might sprout gills? Would you put a million of them in an oxygen-depleted atmosphere thinking at least one of them would learn to use nitrogen instead? How about a fire? Let's throw a million people into an incinerator and hope one of them adapts with fire-resistant skin. Any competent evolutionist will quickly recognize that the process doesn't work like that -- so why do we think it would work that way within our psyche?

I personally believe in evolution, but I'm highly skeptical of anyone who supports the theory yet seems to think we're going to go from a society built around a religious framework as little as 200-300 years ago to an areligious society in anything less than a thousand years. To me, it seems like an anti-religion evolutionist is simply a person who abhors religion and is looking for a convenient scientific theory with which to justify their belief system.

But hey, that's just my two cents

Stop with the strawman arguments. Biochemists have shown through experimentation that amino acids combine from a primordial ooze. Where is the evidence Jesus did it 10,000 years ago? They haven't been able to accelerate "evolution in a jar." Biology is less than two centuries old...religion is tens of thousands of years old...give them some time.Where is the religious evidence? You must believe Obama will pay for nationalized healthcare from government spearheaded savings programs?

 

[mrplunkey]

Stop with the strawman arguments. Biochemists have shown through experimentation that amino acids combine from a primordial ooze. Where is the evidence Jesus did it 10,000 years ago? They haven't been able to accelerate "evolution in a jar." Biology is less than two centuries old...religion is tens of thousands of years old...give them some time.Where is the religious evidence? You must believe Obama will pay for nationalized healthcare from government spearheaded savings programs?

Biology can take all the time it wants. And if they ever do discover the true origins of life, I'll be excited to learn all about it.

Now back to the matter at hand. Given that evolution is true and given our brains spent tens to hundreds of thousands of years under a religious paradigm, why in the world would anyone denounce religion?

 

[Whiskey]

39% seems low. very low. God isn't real. Deal with it.

And if so many of the so called christian did "truly" believe in god, they'd be Greek Orthodox, the first true form of christianity.... If it wasn't for the fact that most of the worlds problems are caused by religion, I wouldn't give a hoot

Whiskey

 

[Mr. dB]