Christian med students: how do you reconcile your religion with your profession?

[Nasrudin]

You know where people don't disagree with each other much: the church, the mosque, and North Korea. No thanks, I'm good, and the hell with that.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Sammy777]

For one, 'evolution' is a scientific theory, not a religion. The theory is based on explicit evidence perceived by our senses. We know there are holes in the theory and so we seek to explain them with evidence based data.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/science


science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:

The claim all life descended from a common ancestor is NOT testable, NOT observable. NOT repeatable NOT experimental NOT science. It is a FAITH based belief (religion). You are welcome to your religious belief but it is not science (it is a burden on science).


'

Religion' is a belief and, as mentioned earlier, is the result of faith, not the senses. Any holes in a religious belief are explained by 'blind faith' and not explicit evidence perceived by the senses.

Your religion is evolutionism which in your case (and 99% of other evolutionists) gets taken by blind faith.

Evolution is taught in schools because it is important for children to understand an evidence-based "life theory" that uses reason and rationale

.

Evolutionism is INDOCTRINATED in schools because if it was taught (all of it, that abiogenesis is impossible, that a bacteria producing anything other than a bacteria is impossible, that there is NO genetic mechanism for alleged all life common descent) it becomes pretty obvious it is a ******ed myth.

The government may fund our schools but lets not forget the government's tie to religion. If the government were independent of religion, I, as a man, could legally marry my boyfriend and I'd never see the phrase "In God We Trust" every time I pull my wallet out.

The government religion in schools is evolutionism, Christianity religion was chucked out and evolutionism religion was bought in.


Most evolutionists will die brainwashed not realising all life common descent never happened and everybody descended from Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden.

http://austore.creation.com/catalog/genetic-entropy-mystery-genome-p-1003.html

 

[494110]

Most evolutionists will die brainwashed not realising all life common descent never happened and everybody descended from Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden.

Once again, I'm glad you feel your argument is stronger by attacking your opponent rather than supporting your side. Anyways, believe what you will.

According to you I need to decide between two things: do I want to be brainwashed into believing that (1) life on earth is less than 6,000 years old or (2) life on earth is more than 6,000 years old. I would posit my rationale for my 'beliefs' but, in all honesty, I'm tired of being treated with hostility by people like you when I could have a more insightful conversation with religious individuals on this site who practice a kind-hearted method of discussion.

 

[sloanp13]

Really if you think about it, evolution doesn't directly go against the Bible. It says that God created everything. It doesn't say how.

 

[touchpause13]

Really if you think about it, evolution doesn't directly go against the Bible. It says that God created everything. It doesn't say how.

Evolution clashes with a literal understanding of the creation stories in gensis

 

[Nasrudin]

Once again, I'm glad you feel your argument is stronger by attacking your opponent rather than supporting your side. Anyways, believe what you will.

According to you I need to decide between two things: do I want to be brainwashed into believing that (1) life on earth is less than 6,000 years old or (2) life on earth is more than 6,000 years old. I would posit my rationale for my 'beliefs' but, in all honesty, I'm tired of being treated with hostility by people like you when I could have a more insightful conversation with religious individuals on this site who practice a kind-hearted method of discussion.

I'm wondering if you're really serious. On the off chance your are: Look, if someone's doing you're heavy lifting, let them. If your opponent is emotionally off balance let it work against them.

The fact is these ideas are hostile to one another. Religion insists on it by declaring us all star bellied sneeches or not before some cosmic magistrate. Let these doe like diests who think they're Christians be offended by ideas. Let them waste energy thinking that means being hostile to them. The truth is they just haven't thought a lot about what's bouncing around in their head and think anyone who attacks the womb feeding their evil twin is threatening. Well in the world of ideas we are threatening. There's no way around it.

As atheists and agnostics we have no reason to adopt this coddled confused sense of offense. We're flat gonna offend some folks. Just by existing and not living in a submissive silence.

...if you're serious that is. Because Sammy is awesome. You know how hard is to argue with confused diests who just want everyone not to be a meanie while they carry out the worldy objectives of their faiths....it's very tricky. Sammy owns the scripture, takes it seriously, and in this rarified liberal environment has the guts to represent most American Christians or at least a huge portion of them. The blessing of Poseidon be upon him.

 

[487806]

Your religion is 'evolution' which you would have tried to force down someones throat at least once in your life. The difference is evolutionists take their religion by blind faith and the evolutionism religion is tax payer funded government indoctrinated religion (schools/unis).



100% evolutionists.

Apologize in advance for being harsh, but

This is the most idiotic thing I have seen on SDN. Saying evolution is a religion is saying all scientific theories are religion.

Just because science objectively disproves some of the religious tenets doesn't mean it's a religion, "Anti-Christ", Satanic, etc.

 

[Sammy777]

Really if you think about it, evolution doesn't directly go against the Bible. It says that God created everything. It doesn't say how.

Evolution clashes with a literal understanding of the creation stories in gensis

Either all life descended from a single common ancestor which itself came from non living matter through natural processes or mankind was created in the image of God. They are polar opposites. One of them is a myth. 'Evolution' is the lie started by the serpent in Genesis 3 to trick mankind- Adam and Eve didnt exist-therefore sin didnt ruin a perfect creation (God didnt create death/disease/suffering etc Adam and Eves sin introduced death/disease/suffering into creation) therefore God didnt judge sin in Noahs flood, therefore Jesus wasnt God. It all follows from A--->Z once someone starts believing evolutionism it starts eroding their trust/faith in the book of Genesis. Satans most successful lie. I would call it THE lie. And atheists fall for it hook line and sinker (heck i might of got evo indoctrinated if i went to uni straight from school (i intend to go to uni but i know in advance 'evolution' is the myth)).

As atheists and agnostics we have no reason to adopt this coddled confused sense of offense. We're flat gonna offend some folks. Just by existing and not living in a submissive silence.

Because of a propaganda campaign second to none most atheists/evolutionists are not used to having their religion criticized. All of society tells them that their beliefs are based on 'science' and Christianity is 'religion' (their worldview (big ban/abiogenesis/all life common descent) are without foundation and have NO basis in science)). The atheists needs propaganda to make them feel comfortable.

This is the most idiotic thing I have seen on SDN. Saying evolution is a religion is saying all scientific theories are religion. Just because science objectively disproves some of the religious tenets doesn't mean it's a religion, "Anti-Christ", Satanic, etc.

Standard fallacy of equating 'evolution' with science and science with 'evolution'. You reject science and embrace pseudo-science (evolution/big bang/abiogenesis) couldnt care less but evolution is NOT science. You are welcome to your religious belief.

When the atheist says the word 'science' they DONT mean observational physics/maths/chemistry/biochemistry/astronomy (ACTUAL science) they mean billions of years/evolution/abiogenesis/big bang all 4 of which are NOT observable NOT testable NOT repeatable NOT science. The irony...

Most people on earth have read Genesis (though they may not believe it) most people on earth have NOT read Charles Darwins 'Origin of species' (the 'bible' of the evolutionism worldview/faith/religion) and this includes evolutionists. Most evolutionists have NO clue what they take by blind faith.

 

[Frank22]

Sammy the fact that the Universe is expanding is observable evidence of the Big Bang; observable evidence of the theory of evolution does exist within the fossil record. It is for that reason why theistic evolution is the official teaching of the Catholic Church; moreover, the Big Bang was not first proposed by Edwin Hubble, but by a Belgian Roman Catholic priest by the name of Georges Lemaitre, who borrowed from the exegesis of St. Augustine of Hippo to conceptualize the Big Bang and the expansion of the Universe (although he published his findings in a less prestigious journal than did Hubble).

 

[touchpause13]

Wow do you actually believe this crap? You realize that not athiests believe in evolution and not all those who believe in evolution are athiests, right?

And evolution is very much part of science. Seeing as I took an evolution course through the biology department I'm pretty damn sure it's science. And honestly I don't see how biology makes any sense without evolution. Evolution is what ties it all together.

 

[Nasrudin]

Because of a propaganda campaign second to none most atheists/evolutionists are not used to having their religion criticized. All of society tells them that their beliefs are based on 'science' and Christianity is 'religion' (their worldview (big ban/abiogenesis/all life common descent) are without foundation and have NO basis in science)). The atheists needs propaganda to make them feel comfortable.

.

You're the champ.

 

[494110]

I think Sammy has validated my 'beliefs'. If he/she wants to go the rest of their life believing a snake lied to society and those that believed the lie used it to develop biological theories which are directly responsible for the vast majority of modern medicine then I think I'd rather be lied to. That is one thing Sammy and I have in common... Ignorance is bliss.

 

[EgyPremed34]

Sir, you need to look up Dr. Francis Collins of the human genome project!

 

[Mr Avante]

​

 

[QuizzicalApe]

At least two of those quotes do relate to that notion; specifically, Napoleon's statement regarding Christ founding his empire upon love, and Gandhi's statement regarding Christ's sacrifice (gift) to humanity.

Your quotes were offered as evidence that being charitable is inherent to religious organizations by virtue of religiousity.

Napoleon was a head of state and military leader. He was not a sociologist, he conducted no actual investigation into the topic you and I were discussing. Likewise with Gandhi Since I'd prefer to base things on evidence rather than the gut feeling of a dead political leaders, I disregard those opinions.

This is not a one-sided application of rigor. If someone told me that Jesus Christ has had a net negative effect on the world and as proof used a quote from Einstein saying "Sometimes I think it would have been better if Jesus had never lived. No name was so abused for the sake of power!", I would tell that person to stuff it. One man's opinion bereft of convincing supporting data is meaningless in supporting a serious argument.

I don't know where you learned that making an innuendo somehow supports your view, but it does not. In fact, it only makes you appear obstinate and haughty; it is the hubris of the defeated.

Oops, sorry. Allow me to clarify. Given the triviality of making a facebook page, their existence doesn't say a lot. I could find a lot of stupid crap on geocities, but finding random fringe beliefs on the internet doesn't allow me to make the confident statement that many people believe the world's nations are controlled by a cabal of shapeshifting reptilians.

Which, by the way, is an actual belief that some people have.

If we are having a debate (or a discussion) we are debating or discussing my beliefs and your beliefs; they do not necessarily have to relate to the central tenet's of Christianity. You also said this:

I am discussing a very specific assertion regardling whether or not the religiosity of an organization has a direct influence on its charitably. My stance is the default stance that most people should have about most assertions like it. Lacking convincing empiric evidence, I am not convinced.

If you think I am trying to have a more broad discussion on the content or veracity of your faith, you are mistaken.

If I were to believe what I do on the basis of those quotes, you would then be entirely justified in claiming I'm "appealing to authority" or whatever other accusations you've made about me, but the fact is that those quotes encapsulate little more than auxiliary evidence for the belief that Christ taught altruism and peace.

It is entirely reasonable to offer those quotes and say "Here, people have recognized that Christ encouraged love."

I agree that Christ encouraged love.

That doesn't translate into Christians being any more loving, sadly. The world would be a better place if it did - my country would be much better if it did. A quote is commonly attributed to Gandhi (I think there isn't solid evidence that he said it, though). "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

I suppose that is fuzzy auxiliary "evidence" that religiousity does not imply charitability, as long as we're playing the auxiliary not-quite-evidence game.

Or perhaps you didn't bother to read those quotes, given you claimed they make no reference to the peaceful teachings of Christ; a claim that is manifestly false.

I claimed they made no reference to the religiosity of an organization having a positive causational link to charitability.

There are quite a few unsourced jumps and leaps between establishing that Christ preached peace, which he certainly did, and that.

You've written a lot of "sort of, not really, kind of," type comments with a few innuendos interspersed. I wonder what the point is in making such comments other than simply saying something.

Your argument has been a rather wandering and un-rigorous one. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond. You've never provided any evidence for your original assertion, but through some internal logic you've become pretty positive that you have. I point that out, and you still don't. That's fine, it's the internet. You don't have to.

That's just sort of where we are right now

 

[QuizzicalApe]

Hi sammy. You're making a lot of statements about science.

To see that you're correct, which I'm sure you'd want to do because you don't have blind faith like the rest of us, I'm sure you're probably in the process of seeking out assorted landmark studies in evolutionary theory that establish some of the claims you take issue with. I assume you're doing that so you can critique their study designs themselves instead of taking on faith the statement of some random schmuck without any training in the field.

We'll wait for you to come back and offer a reasonable analysis of their methodology.

Failing that it'd be fun if you'd explain your definition of blind faith and clearly articulate how it doesn't apply to you.

 

[Sammy777]

Sammy the fact that the Universe is expanding

Scientific fact.

is observable evidence of the Big Bang;

Your INTERPRETATION of the fact (which you take by blind faith). Any cosmological model would have to incorporate the expansion of the universe into it. Biblical creation physicists incorporate it into their models (Dr Jason Lisle, Dr Russel Humphress). Any model would have to incorporate it into it.

observable evidence of the theory of evolution does exist within the fossil record.

No informed evolutionists (excsuse the paradox) would claim the fossils record is reflective of all life common descent. The fossil record is a record of mass death/extinction (Noahs flood) billions of animals and mass amount of trees/plant getting buried in mud (we have coal/hydrocarbons because of Noahs flood). Through propaganda in most peoples minds the fossil record is associated with evolutionism. Its only because of the historical fact of Noahs flood can fossils be used to fool people into evolution and that Noahs flood is just a myth. The irony (again).

It is for that reason why theistic evolution is the official teaching of the Catholic Church;

Pathetic that your 'authority' is the catholic church. Nevertheless appeal to authority logical fallacy.

moreover, the Big Bang was not first proposed by Edwin Hubble, but by a Belgian Roman Catholic priest by the name of Georges Lemaitre, who borrowed from the exegesis of St. Augustine of Hippo to conceptualize the Big Bang and the expansion of the Universe (although he published his findings in a less prestigious journal than did Hubble

The big bang was only IMAGINED 100 something years ago. What did atheists believe before that? Genesis has never changed. The big bang timeline has changed from 20 billion years decades ago to 13.75 billion today. The atheist must believe the universe aged 6.25 billion years in a few decades (lol).

Wow do you actually believe this crap? You realize that not athiests believe in evolution and not all those who believe in evolution are athiests, right?

The atheist must believe in evolutionism. They have no other choice. Even Dawkins says believing 'evolution' leads to atheism (Expelled movie).

https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHJbJYlfyamszkFGoEXlHvcprZ_jQ

“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.” William Provine

And evolution is very much part of science. Seeing as I took an evolution course through the biology department I'm pretty damn sure it's science. And honestly I don't see how biology makes any sense without evolution. Evolution is what ties it all together

Evolutionism is mixed in with science but it is not science. If taught in the class of its own category (religion or history or philosophy) it would become obvious pretty quickly that it is a ******ed myth and never has and never will exist in the natural world. Hence the necessity of mixing it with something real (science is real, science works, knowledge gained from the scientific method builds space shuttles and creates vaccines, evolution is NOT science). Evolution ******s scientific progression.

used it to develop biological theories which are directly responsible for the vast majority of modern medicine then I think I'd rather be lied to.

Antibiotics come from fungus created 6,000 years ago in 6 plain days. If anything is the basis of modern medicine it is Genesis. Majority areas of science were started by biblical creationists (Newton (YEC), Kepler (YEC) Gailieo, Faraday, Clerk Maxwell, Mendel, Pasteur). The evolutionary doctors is being inconsistent in their worldview saving people with genetic diseases lives. If being consistent they would kill people with genetic diseases (survival of the fittest). Only Genesis can predict an orderly logical universe on which the scientific method is based. A cosmic mistake cant. Genesis is the basis of the scientific method. (Again) the atheist doing SCIENCE is borrowing tenets from Genesis and being inconsistent in their worldview. Oh the irony (again).

Sir, you need to look up Dr. Francis Collins of the human genome project!

Collins is a 'theistic evolutionist' (believes God 'evolved' life over billions of years then put a soul in the first 2 people (dont laugh)). Im not sure which 'God' he believes in. Its not the God described in Genesis 1:1-31. That said i have no doubt he is a christian. I emailed the guy 1.5 years ago and he responded. Another appeal to authority logical fallacy too (you guys are good at these).

Hi sammy. You're making a lot of statements about science.

To see that you're correct, which I'm sure you'd want to do because you don't have blind faith like the rest of us, I'm sure you're probably in the process of seeking out assorted landmark studies in evolutionary theory that establish some of the claims you take issue with. I assume you're doing that so you can critique their study designs themselves instead of taking on faith the statement of some random schmuck without any training in the field.

We'll wait for you to come back and offer a reasonable analysis of their methodology.

Not sure what saying. It comes back down to worldview. Depending on ones presuppositions/a priori axioms depends how one interprets data in the present about events that may/may not have happened in the past. The atheistic evolutionists presuppositions (99% of the time by blind faith (have to say it again to emphasize)) : Genesis is a myth, all life/common ancestor, billions and billions of years (deep time is one the most ingrained a priori axioms there is even more so than evolutionism) therefore all data in the present (universal genetic code across all life, similar DNA/protein sequences, expansion of the universe) is interpreted to fit that starting point. My presupposition :Genesis 1:1-31 is literal, 6000 years 6 plain days blah blah blah, all life common descent is the myth then all data gets interpreted in light of that worldview. The exact same data 2 different worldviews, 2 different interpretations.

Failing that it'd be fun if you'd explain your definition of blind faith and clearly articulate how it doesn't apply to you.

Got to go back later will later

 

[QuizzicalApe]

Not sure what saying. It comes back down to worldview. Depending on ones presuppositions/a priori axioms depends how one interprets data in the present about events that may/may not have happened in the past. The atheistic evolutionists presuppositions (99% of the time by blind faith (have to say it again to emphasize)) : Genesis is a myth,

This is admittedly something that will be held a priori by many people you will encounter. Atheists are no more immune than theists to the risks of accepting something a priori when it should not be.

all life/common ancestor,

The interesting thing here is that this is more of an a posteriori derived from observed evidence. If someone had the goal of designing a philosophy solely to support atheism, a single common ancestor wouldn't have to be the go-to. It could have easily been proposed that there was more than one start point and that the "tree of life" may actually be a small copse of trees, trunks and branches running in parallel. Arguably, this may have been the easier "sell" since some folks just plain balk at the concept of all life being so interrelated, as you may have noticed.

billions and billions of years (deep time is one the most ingrained a priori axioms there is even more so than evolutionism) therefore all data in the present (universal genetic code across all life, similar DNA/protein sequences, expansion of the universe) is interpreted to fit that starting point. My presupposition :Genesis 1:1-31 is literal, 6000 years 6 plain days blah blah blah, all life common descent is the myth then all data gets interpreted in light of that worldview. The exact same data 2 different worldviews, 2 different interpretations.

You are being honest in your admission of your own suppositions, and I do appreciate that. Since you admit to seeing things through that world-view, could it be possible that when you are perceiving your opposition through that lens, your lens may be coloring things unfavorably?

Simply put, since you admit you are seeing things through that lens, aren't you predisposed to thinking that everyone is filtering things the same way? Just because many things are a priori with you doesn't mean that comparable things are a priori for decades and decades of researchers.

Got to go back later will later

I look forward to it.

 

[mehc012]

Dear Sammy
By all means continue believing your delusional BS about 'evolutionism'.
But please, PLEASE, for the love of whatever you find holy, stop conflating 'atheist' with 'believes in evolution' with 'believes in abiogenesis'. Those are not the same things. You can be an atheist without believing in the current front-runner theories about the origin of life. You can believe in 'evolution' as a currently observable mechanism of genetic change WITHOUT believing that it sufficiently explains the diversity of species on the planet. You can believe that abiogenesis is a feasible explanation and still believe in God.
Also, Christianity is not the only religion in the world, so stop acting as if 'not atheist' is equivalent to 'Christian'.
Basically, please stop turning the issue black and white when it's really, REALLY not.

 

[487806]

Dear Sammy
By all means continue believing your delusional BS about 'evolutionism'.
But please, PLEASE, for the love of whatever you find holy, stop conflating 'atheist' with 'believes in evolution' with 'believes in abiogenesis'. Those are not the same things. You can be an atheist without believing in the current front-runner theories about the origin of life. You can believe in 'evolution' as a currently observable mechanism of genetic change WITHOUT believing that it sufficiently explains the diversity of species on the planet. You can believe that abiogenesis is a feasible explanation and still believe in God.
Also, Christianity is not the only religion in the world, so stop acting as if 'not atheist' is equivalent to 'Christian'.
Basically, please stop turning the issue black and white when it's really, REALLY not.

Sammy is subtly trolling us hard. He's actually pro-evolution but acting to denounce it to mock the creationists' argument. Brilliant work Sammy. You got me there.

 

[487806]

Either all life descended from a single common ancestor which itself came from non living matter through natural processes or mankind was created in the image of God. They are polar opposites. One of them is a myth. 'Evolution' is the lie started by the serpent in Genesis 3 to trick mankind- Adam and Eve didnt exist-therefore sin didnt ruin a perfect creation (God didnt create death/disease/suffering etc Adam and Eves sin introduced death/disease/suffering into creation) therefore God didnt judge sin in Noahs flood, therefore Jesus wasnt God. It all follows from A--->Z once someone starts believing evolutionism it starts eroding their trust/faith in the book of Genesis. Satans most successful lie. I would call it THE lie. And atheists fall for it hook line and sinker (heck i might of got evo indoctrinated if i went to uni straight from school (i intend to go to uni but i know in advance 'evolution' is the myth)).



Because of a propaganda campaign second to none most atheists/evolutionists are not used to having their religion criticized. All of society tells them that their beliefs are based on 'science' and Christianity is 'religion' (their worldview (big ban/abiogenesis/all life common descent) are without foundation and have NO basis in science)). The atheists needs propaganda to make them feel comfortable.



Standard fallacy of equating 'evolution' with science and science with 'evolution'. You reject science and embrace pseudo-science (evolution/big bang/abiogenesis) couldnt care less but evolution is NOT science. You are welcome to your religious belief.

When the atheist says the word 'science' they DONT mean observational physics/maths/chemistry/biochemistry/astronomy (ACTUAL science) they mean billions of years/evolution/abiogenesis/big bang all 4 of which are NOT observable NOT testable NOT repeatable NOT science. The irony...

Most people on earth have read Genesis (though they may not believe it) most people on earth have NOT read Charles Darwins 'Origin of species' (the 'bible' of the evolutionism worldview/faith/religion) and this includes evolutionists. Most evolutionists have NO clue what they take by blind faith.

Solid Devil's advocate work son. Brilliant portrayal of creationists' ignorance. This post effectively shows creationism is a joke.

 

[Sammy777]

Dear Sammy
By all means continue believing your delusional BS about 'evolutionism'.
But please, PLEASE, for the love of whatever you find holy, stop conflating 'atheist' with 'believes in evolution' with 'believes in abiogenesis'. Those are not the same things.

The atheists has to reject observational science (biogenesis) and take up pseudo-science (A-biogenesis, renamed from spontaneous generation ( HAHAHAHAAH look in a dictionary under abiogenesis/SG loool you believe in spontaneous generation at least ONCE))

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/abiogenesis?q=abiogenesis

abiogenesis

technical term for spontaneous generation.

(crying with laughter HAHAHAHAHAAH oh brother).

You can believe that abiogenesis is a feasible explanation and still believe in God.

Feasible WHAT?

Also, Christianity is not the only religion in the world, so stop acting as if 'not atheist' is equivalent to 'Christian'.
Basically, please stop turning the issue black and white when it's really, REALLY not.

Mathew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me" Jesus Christ creator of the universe and savior of mankind. You reject him. Atheists are against him. Either or black or white.

http://austore.creation.com/catalog/greatest-hoax-earth-p-520.html
http://austore.creation.com/catalog/genetic-entropy-mystery-genome-p-1003.html
http://austore.creation.com/catalog/classic-refuting-pack-p-504.html
http://austore.creation.com/catalog/evolution-greatest-deception-p-1181.html

 

[QuizzicalApe]

abiogenesis

technical term for spontaneous generation.

(crying with laughter HAHAHAHAHAAH oh brother).

Abiogenesis is spontaneous generation in the literal definition of the term. However, it is not spontaneous generation in the sense that the term was used hundreds of years ago. They are distinct concepts. To use the term spontaneous generation thus risks equivocation. This is why when we are using technical terms, we should rely on dictionaries from the field in question and not lay dictionaries which will fail to capture the distinctions important for jargon.

 

[mehc012]

The atheists has to reject observational science (biogenesis) and take up pseudo-science (A-biogenesis, renamed from spontaneous generation ( HAHAHAHAAH look in a dictionary under abiogenesis/SG loool you believe in spontaneous generation at least ONCE))

Aaaaand again, 'not believing in god' is not equivalent to 'believes that abiogenesis occurred as currently proposed'. You just conflated the exact two terms I was asking you not to.

Feasible WHAT?

I suggest you use that dictionary you were cackling over 2 lines ago. Only, apparently, you are not very good at that, since your understanding of abiogenesis is poorly formed as well.

Mathew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me" Jesus Christ creator of the universe and savior of mankind. You reject him. Atheists are against him. Either or black or white.

Yes, that is true. Atheists are not christians. But neither are Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, pantheists, etc....
My point was not that atheists were christians, but rather that there are many people who are NOT atheists who are ALSO not christians.

 

[BA11]

I wonder if Sammy is simply ignorant of or flat out ignores the fact that millions of christians have no trouble believing in God and evolution simultaneously. Hell, the largest and most dogmatic christian organization on the planet (the Catholic Church) freely admits that evolution is a distinct possibility and they seek to explain the "why" and not the "how".

Forcing people to choose God or evolution is a false dichotomy that requires one pick a side and denounce the other. The fact of the matter is that, by and large, the only christians who absolutely refuse to consider evolution are fundamental American protestants in the south and Midwest. Most others either don't care or have no trouble reconciling it with their beliefs. I have zero issue with believing in God and evolution and realize that the creation story was written for people 3,500 years ago who had no way of understanding anything as complex as evolution. The message of the bible is eternal, the specific content and narratives were written for a wondering tribal unit in the levant in 1,500 BC.

 

[akira10187]

Arguing back and forth about evolution won't get anywhere. Nor will arguing that Christianity or Atheism are idiotic because of particular beliefs inherent in both belief systems. It's easy to attack a straw man or criticize an ideology when it is seen as some "other group of people," but if it were your best friend or your mother with the contrary religion or ideology, your arguments would probably have a little more nuance, grace, and tact.

Regarding the original post, "How do I reconcile my religion with my profession," Christian scripture tells us that "True religion is this: to remain undefiled by the world, and to visit widows and orphans in their suffering." For me, remaining undefiled by the world means that I pursue my profession of medicine not out of hunger for status or money or comfort, but for a spiritual purpose: to give comfort, healing, and hope to those in need, and to strengthen the communities of my future patients. When I was an atheist/agnostic, I wasn't a particular bad or selfish person, but I certainly didn't believe, as I do now, that anything short of daily continual service to God and my brother in need is unacceptable. If I were still an atheist/agnostic, I would probably still be a good physician but my motivations would be more tempered by desires for comfort, lifestyle, and pay. That is not to say that Christians are inherently more giving or that atheists are selfish--but in MY case, for ME, religion has heightened my natural inclinations for justice and generosity, while mitigating somewhat my natural inclinations of greed and laziness. Atheism didn't do that for me.

If you are a Christian, atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or whatever--does your particular belief system push you onward and encourage you every day to sacrifice your own will and desires for the sake of your brothers and sisters here on this Earth? If it does, then you are reconciling your religion and your profession in the noblest of ways.

 

[mehc012]

Arguing back and forth about evolution won't get anywhere. Nor will arguing that Christianity or Atheism are idiotic because of particular beliefs inherent in both belief systems.

I think at this point we're really just arguing that Sammy777 is being idiotic. Mostly so that he can further inform us of what our beliefs TRULY are in the most amusingly misguided way possible...I really feel as if I'm finding my spiritual way now that Sammy has told me what I ACTUALLY believe!

 

[PhysMatMan]

Sammy is subtly trolling us hard. He's actually pro-evolution but acting to denounce it to mock the creationists' argument. Brilliant work Sammy. You got me there.

I think you're onto something here...

 

[Soccer22]

Sorry for jumping in here, but evolution is not relevant when it comes to Christianity. There are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution and there are plenty who don't. It makes no difference. Going back to people who say the Bible contradicts itself, that all depends on the way you interpret it. Correctly interpreted (or at least the best that we know how to do), some of the most secular historians won't even claim the Bible is self refuting. There are plenty of Christians who dont believe in Adam and Eve, don't believe in the flood, and don't believe Jonah got swallowed by a whale.

Why is it OK for the likes of Issac Newton to be devout Christians but not some random people in your Med School? I'm not trying to be controversial here. I respect everyones beliefs, I'm just curious. Far too often do people present what little knowledge they have on Christianity and claim they know everything about it.

 

[Soccer22]

Sorry for jumping in here, but evolution is not relevant when it comes to Christianity. There are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution and there are plenty who don't. It makes no difference. Going back to people who say the Bible contradicts itself, that all depends on the way you interpret it. Correctly interpreted (or at least the best that we know how to do), some of the most secular historians won't even claim the Bible is self refuting. There are plenty of Christians who dont believe in Adam and Eve, don't believe in the flood, and don't believe Jonah got swallowed by a whale.

Why is it OK for the likes of Issac Newton to be devout Christians but not some random people in your Med School? I'm not trying to be controversial here. I respect everyones beliefs, I'm just curious. Far too often do people present what little knowledge they have on Christianity and claim they know everything about it.

 

[Sammy777]

I wonder if Sammy is simply ignorant of or flat out ignores the fact that millions of christians have no trouble believing in God and evolution simultaneously. Hell, the largest and most dogmatic christian organization on the planet (the Catholic Church) freely admits that evolution is a distinct possibility and they seek to explain the "why" and not the "how".

I wonder if BA11 is simply ignorant of or flat out ignores the fact that the catholic church is the CATHOLIC church and different from Christianity and that appeal to authorities and majority are LOGICAL FALLACIES.

There are plenty of Christians who dont believe in Adam and Eve, don't believe in the flood, and don't believe Jonah got swallowed by a whale.

Appeal to majority (or appeal to some % of people) LOGICAL FALLACY AGAIN.

__________________

 

[494110]

Either Sammy is a troll or they are a candidate for shooting a school up. Either way, Sammy is an example of what believing in an extreme can do to a psyche.

 

[yappy]

You know where people don't disagree with each other much: the church, the mosque, and North Korea. No thanks, I'm good, and the hell with that.

You forgot to mention higher and public education.

I agree with someones post earlier about having respect for other peoples worldview - even if we don't agree with it - is valuable. It allows us to understand why someone may think the way that they do and how that may affect their perception of the world.

 

[QuizzicalApe]

I wonder if BA11 is simply ignorant of or flat out ignores the fact that the catholic church is the CATHOLIC church and different from Christianity and that appeal to authorities and majority are LOGICAL FALLACIES.

Christianity is a broad classification which includes Catholicism. It is a common misconception by some evangelical christians who are ideologically descended from protestants that their particular denomination is "Christianity" and other denominations are something else.

Stating the Catholic church's stance on evolution as evidence that evolution and religion are not incompatible is not a logical fallacy. Rather, it is simplest way to disprove an absolute statement to the contrary.

It is nice that you've learned the names of some fallacies, Sammy, but you need to learn what they actually mean and how to correctly identify them. You have a vague sense, but you're just sort of shouting them out at the merest whiff without stopping to confirm, which ends up looking silly.

Appeal to majority (or appeal to some % of people) LOGICAL FALLACY AGAIN.

This isn't an appeal to the majority, because it isn't being stated that because a large number believe it it must be true. Rather, it is a statement of support for the notion that there is not an inherent conflict between religion/christianity and the notion of evolution.

There is, of course, a conceptual conflict between biblical literalists and evolution, but biblical literalists by no means comprise the whole of christianity so who cares what they think.

 

[Nasrudin]

You forgot to mention higher and public education.

I agree with someones post earlier about having respect for other peoples worldview - even if we don't agree with it - is valuable. It allows us to understand why someone may think the way that they do, and how that may affect their perception of the world.

Awareness and respect are not the same. Nor are they the same as duty. I abide my duty without faltering. It doesn't even occur to me to think about somebody's religious beliefs in a negative light when I am bound to their service and the therapeutic alliance is at stake. It's only a religious mind that feels threatened by questioning of it's premises in general that would assume such a thing.

However, if there is a conflict between my patient's well being and their parent's or their culture's traditions I will not hesitate to not respect them in the line of duty. CPS will be notified immediately if I encounter a child bride, regardless of the fact that it is a perfectly accepted part of many cultures.

It seems the question of ethical compromise falls more squarely on the shoulders of a religious pharmacist who refuses to give out birth control in a small one horse town. But that doesn't seem to bother your sort. What seems to bother you more is that someone is conjuring the boogie man in your closet.

 

[yappy]

Many assumptions in that post...

I have no doubt that you're trained, maybe even technically proficient for someone at your stage of training, but you still need to be educated. If you don't make a conscious effort it may escape you.

Awareness and respect are not the same. Nor are they the same as duty. I abide my duty without faltering. It doesn't even occur to me to think about somebody's religious beliefs in a negative light when I am bound to their service and the therapeutic alliance is at stake. It's only a religious mind that feels threatened by questioning of it's premises in general that would assume such a thing.

However, if there is a conflict between my patient's well being and their parent's or their culture's traditions I will not hesitate to not respect them in the line of duty. CPS will be notified immediately if I encounter a child bride, regardless of the fact that it is a perfectly accepted part of many cultures.

It seems the question of ethical compromise falls more squarely on the shoulders of a religious pharmacist who refuses to give out birth control in a small one horse town. But that doesn't seem to bother your sort. What seems to bother you more is that someone is conjuring the boogie man in your closet.

 

[Nasrudin]

Many assumptions in that post...

I have no doubt that you're trained, maybe even technically proficient for someone at your stage of training, but you still need to be educated. If you don't make a conscious effort it may escape you.

So what am I doing that lacks education? I'd be happy to consider it and evaluate myself accordingly.

 

[Mr Avante]

May I kindly ask who is winning?

 

[JGimpel]

Relax, people.

 

[Nasrudin]

Why does it bother so many people that other people sharpen their minds by martial exchange of ideas? Why is timidity elevated to some moral position in itself? It used to be common practice in education to develop your own ideas by arguing them. And also in being able to argue the other side of things.

With regards to arguing the other side. In the psychological literature there has been a demonstrable protective effect of religion against depressive disorders and suicide. I have no answer for this. And in light of it would prefer if it is unsettling to people to question their faith that by all means they should keep their religious beliefs. I haven't decided what this means to how I view public atheism but I'm doing a research project that has made me aware of the strength of this evidence and it is causing something of a mental pause in my approach to this debate.

 

[StoicJosher]

Why does it bother so many people that other people sharpen their minds by martial exchange of ideas? Why is timidity elevated to some moral position in itself? It used to be common practice in education to develop your own ideas by arguing them. And also in being able to argue the other side of things.

With regards to arguing the other side. In the psychological literature there has been a demonstrable protective effect of religion against depressive disorders and suicide. I have no answer for this. And in light of it would prefer if it is unsettling to people to question their faith that by all means they should keep their religious beliefs. I haven't decided what this means to how I view public atheism but I'm doing a research project that has made me aware of the strength of this evidence and it is causing something of a mental pause in my approach to this debate.

You should check out the book "The Evolution of Religion" by Bulbulia, et al. It examines the advantages of religion through our evolutionary history and tries to elucidate the development of religion based on anthropological, neuroscience, and evolutionary psychology research.

 

[Sammy777]

With regards to arguing the other side. In the psychological literature there has been a demonstrable protective effect of religion against depressive disorders and suicide. I have no answer for this.

The reason is obvious to me a christian YEC who can consistently put myself in the atheistic evolutionism worldview, atheistic evolutionism provides NO hope for the future, if one gets depressed why not just off oneself? In the atheism worldview man is no better than slugs and worms and rats. Constantly being told 'you are just an 'evolved' animal, you came from pond scum billions of years ago, you are a mistake' strips all value of life. Again see Jefrrey Dahmer on youtube ("Jeffery Dahmer evolution" on yotuube). Evolution is universal acid on mankind. Obviously 'religious' people (Christians) as brainwashed victims like to call them (evolutionists) believe (ok so some christians are inconsistent in their worldview and dont believe Genesis)-Man was created in the image of God which means everyone by default is made in the image of God-man was given dominion over the animals- a straight forward reading of Genesis means a recent creation (in the neighborhood of 6,000 years), a loving God who created everything 'Good' and 'Very good' which was ruined by mankinds sin. The christian creationism worldview provides hope and redemption for mankind (Jesus Christ). Evolution is a empty pit. The lie:evolutionism.

 

[BA11]

I wonder if BA11 is simply ignorant of or flat out ignores the fact that the catholic church is the CATHOLIC church and different from Christianity and that appeal to authorities and majority are LOGICAL FALLACIES.

Ah, you're one of those. Ignoring for the sake of argument that Catholicism is the oldest and largest brand of Christianity, I'll get right to the point: I am not appealing to authorities or a majority to prove evolution, I am citing a fact that shows that belief in evolution and religion are NOT inherently incompatible.

The reality is that, much like alcohol consumption, evolution is only strongly resisted by large numbers of christians in certain geographic areas of the United States. The vast, vast majority of European Christians, Canadian Christians, Mexican Christians, South American Christians, Eastern Orthodox Christians, etc. have no problem with alcohol or evolution. Does this prove evolution? No, but it DOES show that Christians aren't falling over themselves in other parts of the world to fight it.

 

[BA11]

The reason is obvious to me a christian YEC who can consistently put myself in the atheistic evolutionism worldview, atheistic evolutionism provides NO hope for the future, if one gets depressed why not just off oneself? In the atheism worldview man is no better than slugs and worms and rats. Constantly being told 'you are just an 'evolved' animal, you came from pond scum billions of years ago, you are a mistake' strips all value of life. Again see Jefrrey Dahmer on youtube ("Jeffery Dahmer evolution" on yotuube). Evolution is universal acid on mankind. Obviously 'religious' people (Christians) as brainwashed victims like to call them (evolutionists) believe (ok so some christians are inconsistent in their worldview and dont believe Genesis)-Man was created in the image of God which means everyone by default is made in the image of God-man was given dominion over the animals- a straight forward reading of Genesis means a recent creation (in the neighborhood of 6,000 years), a loving God who created everything 'Good' and 'Very good' which was ruined by mankinds sin. The christian creationism worldview provides hope and redemption for mankind (Jesus Christ). Evolution is a empty pit. The lie:evolutionism.

While I believe in God, I never understood this positions from fellow theists. Why does believing there is no God (which is not true for most non-theists, the majority simply claim it is unknowable) make life worthless? If this life is ALL you have, is it not of impossibly infinite value? If this is all you get why on earth would you not live every day to the fullest? Moreover, why does believing in evolution make life depressing? Because we don't get to be special creations of an omnipotent being? That doesn't diminish the happiness one experiences in life.

The question can easily be posed by atheists that, if you believe you are saved by God and will go to Heaven when you die, why don't YOU just off yourself? If you truly believe in a perfect paradise, why would you waste one more second here? Of course some Christians believe suicide sends you to Hell, but the typical evangelical (of which I'm assuming you are one of) believes in once saved, always saved or some variant and that suicide is NOT a one way ticket to damnation.

Of course I do not think that way, but it's a very easy retort to your ramblings. Life has meaning simply because life exists. The concept of God simply extends meaning beyond life.