'She believes we're decended from apes!'

[Bumperlicioso]

Said with incredulous laughter by a very religious acquaintance. Does religion preclude a belief in evolution? Apparently there is nothing to support it according to same acquaintance.

Ok. I apologise unreservedly if my phrases were actually offensive. My 'inflammatory language' might have been excessive (it was reductive, rather than imflammatory), but it served a purpose - to illustrate how ridiculous I think some fundamental christian beliefs are.

Of course I am entitled to judge other people's beliefs. I am free to make judgements about your political beliefs, and no-one would bat an eyelid if I used 'inflamatory language' to criticise someone's affiliation to certain political ideas. If I mocked someone in the BNP for believing that people related to someone who didn't come across with William the Conqueror shouldn't be allowed in Britain, you wouldn't be outraged at that, would you? I can make jokes about the Prime Minister without fear or imprisonment. Thank goodness.

I have the same expectation that I should be allowed to question and even joke about religious beliefs. There would be a worrying flimsiness to beliefs that couldn't stand up to someone using flippant terms to describe them. If my comments actually affected your faith, then maybe it's your faith, not my language that you should be questioning.

Please note, I categorically do not think that any person should be persecuted or abused for any of their beliefs, political or religious.

I think we possibly need to make the distinction between "belief" and "belief systems". I have lots of beliefs (like my genuine feeling that Tesco is trying to take over the world ) but they don't influence my behaviour or the way I view the world.

A belief system is core to the way somebody conducts themselves, views their world, and treats others. Clearly, from the OP, what this woman was saying stemmed from a belief system.

You're right, I do judge people who mutilate women in the name of religion, much as I judge evangelists who exploit the vulnerable for money, or suicide bombers who kill themselves and take others with them so they can have their virgins in heaven.

However, I don't feel that I'm judging them based on religion, but rather based on behaviour that jarrs with my own moral compass. I certainly know enough about Islam to know that it is a peaceful religion with extremist interpretation by a handful of those who practice it. So why would I judge Islam based on the actions of a few?

I personally think that Creationists are taking a moral story and interpreting it in a literal way, and I find that very blinkered and closed-minded, not to mention naive. But again, that's not judging Christianity but rather the interpretation of it.

I know I shouldn't judge at all, but when something is SO wrong, don't we all have to judge a little so that hopefully it'll be seen for what it is, and talked about?

Christianity by definition is based in Christ. The best piece of advice I was given about the Bible is that the Old Testament is a really good Prologue, giving the history of the people and their relationship with God. However, Christianity is all about the New Testament, which doesn't tell anybody to kill someone wearing more than one type of material in their clothes! It is founded on love and helping the poor and building the church. It's just a pity (IMHO) that we've done such a piss poor job of the latter. For me personally, man-made religion is just sub-standard, and has missed the point in so many ways.

victorian talking about "skyfairies" is hardly the worst thing I've heard about Christianity - it doesn't make me question my faith at all. It's just unnecessary, that's all. It's easy for non-believers to take pot shots, as there's something to attack, and much name-calling to be had. Not so the other way round, which is probably a good thing anyway.

is she a magic rib-woman?

NoWay - In this post, you have done something that I was hoping you would do: Define "What can be judged" as "Everything aside from religion". You call religion "belief system" and expect it to be exempt from scrutiny.

Why, exactly? Please explain.

Actually, you went further: You seem to be saying that even some religions should be judged, because "when something is SO wrong", we are allowed to "judge it a little".

Well, this might be news to you, but to those of us who can look at religion like we look at everything else (i.e. rationally), it looks very wrong - seemingly rational and intelligent people professing belief in an imaginary friend, actually thinking they have the keys to some perfect place if they spend their lives to please this imaginary friend, and teaching this shared delusion to little children. It's madness.

It would be one thing if no harm came from this silliness, but when you consider the pointless deaths, destruction, and suffering that has been inflicted in the name of religion, it merits more than a little judgement.

But, nooo. We are not to judge religions. Because they are somehow special. They are not like any other intellectually flawed belief.

Why?

I agree with Cote. The idea that religious belief should be special, or exempt from judgement, by sole factor of being religious...is just frankly preposterous. If anything, religious belief should be held to more scrutiny.

NoWay, you said: "I personally think that Creationists are taking a moral story and interpreting it in a literal way, and I find that very blinkered and closed-minded, not to mention naive. But again, that's not judging Christianity but rather the interpretation of it. "

On the other hand, maybe Creationists are the ones we should admire for their honesty. They declare their beliefs fully (We believe in the literal word of the Bible) and aside from any game-playing they might do with science/logic/reason/common sense, at least they're not playing about with what they believe, or the extent to which they interpret their mythology as fact or metaphor.

Once you start 'interpreting' the Word of God, what does that make you? Presumptious, surely? Who are you to say "God meant this bit, or didn't mean that bit"? How can it make sense to say that the Old bit isn't true any more (except the bits we like and can make use of to discriminate against Others - women, homosexuals, shellfish etc) but pay attention to the New bit?

when you say "interpreting the word of god" I fear what you really mean is "interpreting the word of some well-meaning old men who lived in North Africa five thousand years ago and wrote some myths and fables that have been copied down, and repeated, with editing and rewites depending on the opinions and prejudices of each editor"

That is exactly what I mean - but add to that 'according to the opinions, predjudices, native language, handwriting, eyesight and available natural daylight of each editor". You're right, it's only sensible not to eat shellfish when you live in a desert, or camels if they're your main mode of transport.

Where in the Bible is this Word of God, anyway?

Is there a Book of God that I didn't know about?

"very blinkered and closed-minded, not to mention naive"

NoWay is judging Creationists, people who have a "belief system".

It seems we all agree that religious belief an be judged

It's not really fair to pick on that phrase when I was using it with a small measure of sarcasm, is it? No Christian poster has actually said that - so maybe the bible isn't the Word of God any more - maybe its just Some Words About God, And Some Other Chaps, Plus Rather a Lot of Wanton Devastation and Some Shellfish.

NoWay has said it. I checked back at her post.

Of course she says that judging Creationism is not judging Christianity because that is only an "interpretation" and not the religion itself. According to NoWay.

This is so blindingly obvious that I shouldn't need to say it: Every believer thinks theirs is the real religion and the others are mere interpretations. That is what they believe in their own version, naturally.

In the same light, I would like to say that Christ never claimed to be God or God's offspring, and therefore all Christians of today believe in is an interpretation. It is not the real religion.

Grimma - the belief that evolution is a tool of god (a loving god, source of morality, with a special interest in humans) is no less irrational than the belief in seven days of creation.

the belief that evolution is a tool of god (a loving god, source of morality, with a special interest in humans) is no less irrational than the belief in seven days of creation.

But that's not what I said.

The belief in evolution as a tool of god is far less irrational than fly-in-the-face-of-science creationism.

However, in the light of available evidence, the belief in 'a loving god, source of morality, with a special interest in humans' is totally irrational.

Thats the thing though I don't think one is more irrational than the other, one just has more respectability.

Its a rational facade on an irrational edifice, I reckon.

Like scaffolding on a crumbling cathedral.

More like a film set - nothing actually there.

I disagree. It is entirely possible that a Watchmaker God created the universe, programmed the DNAs of the first organisms, limited their life spans, then sat back and watched to see what those would change into after a million generations of mixing, matching, and mutation of the DNAs.

Maybe we live in an experiment and our Creator is an alien species

"sat back and watched to see what those would change into"

so you don't believe in an all-knowing God, then, Cote?

From a logical perspective it is irrational to believe things if there is no evidence for them. This is my problem with Grimma's speculations - the default position is to not believe in god because there is a no evidence. Saying that one thing is more rational than something else does not make it more true when it is a binary question. The 'god lit the blue touch paper and then retired' position also says nothing about the nature of god - it seems that theists then project a loving nature onto this idea.

Personally, I just can't see any point in believing in a god like that. PigletJohn is right: Bluetouchpaper God doesn't fulfil any of the usual claims about an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god. That god can't be good as it's an amoral stance (the person who fires the starter gun in a race doesn't choose the winner based on the competitors' behaviour). And omnipotent is out, as all control is relinquished (although I shppose "He could if he wanted to"...)
If we answer the "what happened before that?" question with "God did it", that adds nothing to our understanding of the universe or our place in it. We simply defer the question, as we never ask where god came from.

Piglet - I don't believe, nor have I ever believed, in any God, let alone an omniscient one.

I was trying to say that Evolution is not incompatible with Creator God hypothesis.

Victorian - The question of whether or not there is a Creator God has nothing to do with whether or not you see a point in believing in such a God.

Our universe was created on purpose or it came into being randomly. For the moment, we don't know which is true because we have no evidence for or against. We can only spot inconsistencies/contradictions between reality and religion (ex: Earth is over a billion years old and not 6,000 years old as Bible claims), and apply Occam's Razor to religious claims (ex: It is much more plausible that Mary had a resistant hymen and so was pregnant while a "virgin" although impregnated by a man and not by God's elusive Spirit).

Of course you a right that rational people need proof to believe any hypothesis and the God hypothesis fails this test miserably. Therefore, I don't believe. However, I cannot say with certainty that our universe was not Created.

Agree with Cote. And also with ElBurro:

Saying that one thing is more rational than something else does not make it more true when it is a binary question.

Certainly, I don't for a moment think any explanation involving a god is true. But if someone believes in a god (a non-rational position, faith) then surely its more rational if they adjust their beliefs accommodate evidence, rather than ignore evidence entirely?