Religion The God Question - part 2

[M Malice]

The fact we exist suggest that intelligent life can exist in this galaxy (having said that, upon reading this forum and in particular these threads I question whether we can really classify ourselves as an intelligent species).

Given the universe is impossibly huge, with millions upon millions of galaxies out there, each containing millions upon millions of planets, suns and stars within each of these galaxies - by sheer weight of numbers, and drawing upon the fact we ourselves exist, it shows that life is sustainable. Among those trillions upon trillions of planets and stars there is likely planets like ours with similar atmospheric conditions, which could sustain life. And that is only for life forms similar to our own - there could be other kinds of life.

I suspect we will never confirm this in our lifetime (as in whether there is life out there) - but the chances that there is is much much higher than the fairytale stories in the bible being true. Or that there is some all-knowing omnipresent god that created all of this.

As the chance that this imaginary god is real is 0%, the theory that we were seeded is higher than 0% given the above, therefore it is more likely. Personally I don't believe in either theory (alien plant or god).

Or cynically I could just use your arguments for the existence of god and say I know this and you'll just have to believe me because I have faith.

this post and J2Ss next 8 posts after it by J2S are some of the most brilliant logical, commonsense and concise postings i have read on this subject, great stuff J2S.

i did start a thread with a poll re the god v advanced alien entity question a while ago (advanced alien entity won) which was merged with the god question thread by a mod, and my argument was the same ie. the numbers/probabilities and the mere fact that we exist confirms the hypothesis IMO.

 

[chelseacarlton]

No....Religion attempts to foster an ethical remedy to the problem of our being....Of a right course of actions & behaviors towards ourselves, our fellow human beings & the world....Science is completely neutral in that respect....Otherwise, we wouldn't have nuclear bombs amigo.

Which of the 10,000 religions and inspired by which god,thought to number at least 1,000?

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Which of the 10,000 religions and inspired by which god,thought to number at least 1,000?

Well only his of course, all the others are wrong and those gods don't exist. Only his does. He knows this so you'll just have to take his word on that.

Christians are practically Atheists, it's just that we believe in one less god out of the thousands believed-up than they do.

 

[chelseacarlton]

Well only his of course, all the others are wrong and those gods don't exist. Only his does. He knows this so you'll just have to take his word on that.

Christians are practically Atheists, it's just that we believe in one less god out of the thousands believed-up than they do.

I don't think of myself as an atheist because god never even entered the conversation in my house.
But we easily vanquished and destroyed every religion with fervour,that's why I'm team Anti Theist.
But for arguments sake let's assume the role of unbeliever or atheist on this occasion and ask him to go that extra one god and become the human that he so despises.
It is some oddity in his philosophical psychological outrage against "humanity",that he finds "us" disgusting for not honouring consciousness above all creation except this thing he calls god.
Maybe it's the same thing to him,but he's certainly obsessed with it and his new found love of conspiratorial enquiry.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Apart from the fact that most cultures have them & believe in them, you mean?

Apologies for picking on you specifically.

But explain how the 'fact' that 'most cultures' believe in a god is in any way evidence that a god or gods exists?

In fact this shows that all primitive uneducated cultures looked to explain the un-explainable (volcanoes, earthquakes, famines, crops dying out, plagues.... etc. etc.) as they simply weren't intelligent enough to reason out the true origins of their problems. I believe this is called the 'god of the gaps.' You can't explain something so god must have done it.

All cultures, we can agree, were primitive and uneducated at one point. We know this to be true because it has been proven throughout history and through their trials and discoveries we are now able to live the life we do. So you could say the human race has evolved, evolved to a point now where we can explain why volcanoes erupt, why earthquakes occur, why crops die out, why swarms of locusts destroy whole fields of crops, etc. and I'll give you a hot tip - it's not because of god.

Anyhow once again if we apply your logic we can argue that Santa and the tooth fairy are real, and the evidence is that so many children across so many countries believe in them at a young age. This would account for a significant portion of the population on the planet, and therefore this is now evidence.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Ok. Now that I have a bit more time to reply to this earlier post.



That's very debatable. Many of them in fact don’t. They study the Old Testament in isolation without putting in the context of what we know from the time the Old Testament was purported to have been written. That includes archaeology, palaeontology, linguistics, astronomy and comparative literature. In fact textual criticism is very important in determining the veracity of a document, especially copied manuscripts and scrolls. The higher the volume of the earliest texts (and their parallels to each other), the greater the textual reliability and the less chance that the transcript's content has been changed over the years.



All that makes them ‘expert’ in, is the text of the Old Testament. And if they are expert in the Old Testament text, then they should be very familiar with the inconsistencies and doubling up in the text, even though they may not realise the actual anachronisms, as detailed below.



Only because most of them are ignorant in the studies that I mentioned above.

It is very clear from the evidence, and indeed from the Bible itself, that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Bible. Passages such as Deuteronomy 34:6 ("no man knoweth of his sepulchre to this day"), implying an author living long after Moses' death); Number 21:14 (referring to a previous book of Moses' deeds) and Genesis 12:6 ("and the Canaanite was then in the land", implying an author living in a time when the Canaanite was no longer in the land). There’s also the appearance of duplicated stories, such as the two accounts of the creation in the first and second chapters of Genesis and the two accounts of Sarah and a foreign king (Gen. 12 and Gen. 20).

We know that certain books of the Bible were first written down between the 8th and 5th century BC because the books set in earlier times, such as the Book of Samuel and the first five books in the Bible show too many anachronisms to have been contemporary accounts.

For example there is mention of late armour (1 Samuel 17:4–7, 38–39; 25:13), use of camels (1 Samuel 30:17) and cavalry (as distinct from chariotry) (1 Samuel 13:5, 2 Samuel 1:6), iron picks and axes (as though they were common – the time of Samuel was in the Bronze Age) in 2 Samuel 12:31, sophisticated siege techniques (2 Samuel 20:15), a battle with 20,000 casualties (2 Samuel 18:7), and refer to Kushite paramilitary and servants, clearly giving evidence of a date in which Kushites were common, after the 26th Dynasty of Egypt, the period of the last quarter of the 700's BC.

The battles outlined in the Books of Samuel, Judges etc. involving the destruction of the Canaanites have no parallel in (and in fact are refuted by) archaeological record, and it is now widely believed that the Israelites themselves originated as a sub-group of Canaanites. (I can go into the evidence for that if you wish).

The reference to Ur of the Chaldees in Genesis 11.31 is particularly telling. It must have been written after 800 BC, as from archaeology this appears when the Chaldeans settled Ur. The Chaldees were not the rulers of Ur until the late 7th century BC and possibly as late as around 550 BC which corresponds fariyl well to when Genesis is thought to have been constructed in its final form. From the available evidence, the ancient Chaldeans seem to have migrated into Mesopotamia sometime between c. 940–860 BC and No evidence has yet been discovered indicating that the Chaldeans existed in Mesopotamia (or anywhere else in historical record) at the time Abraham (circa 1800–1700 BC) is believed to have existed.

Moses himself is supposed to have existed in the Late Bronze Age. Moses is supposed to have lived between 1391–1271 BC (according to the Jews) and Christian writers Jerome and James Ussher vary his lifespan between 1592 - 1472 BC - and 1571 - 1451 BC . Either way Moses could not have called Abraham’s hometown "Ur of the Chaldees").

Likewise 1 Chronicles 29:7, mentions ten thousand daric as an ancient gold coin in the time of David. The ‘daric’ was introduced by Darius the Great of Persia some time between 522 BC and 486 BC.

It has also been noted that the list of towns ascribed to Judah in the Book of Joshua corresponds precisely to those known to be within Judah's borders in the reign of King Josiah in the seventh century BC. Archaeology also reveals that some of those very same cities listed in the Book of Joshua (the events of which should take place in the Late Bronze Age - 1550 BC - 1150 BC) were only inhabited in the 7th century BC.

So on the basis of above, many scholars now believe that the earliest form of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible (the J-Source) may have been written as early as the eighth century BC in Jerusalem and completed by about the 5th century BC. This would indicate more than one author - probably many - stretched across a period of approximately 300-350 years. Most of the books of what we now know as the Bible appear to have been have been written between 750 BC and 630 BC and finally codified in the reign of King Josiah, while other pieces were added in the fifth century to form the Old Testament as we know it.

Below is a summary of what the most accepted method of constructing the Bible according to the available evidence. There are variations on this of course, but whatever the case, it’s very clear that the Old Testament is the work of a number of authors over a lengthy period of time.

Textual scholars have suggested four authors or possibly schools of authors for most of the Old Testament. Broadly they are:

• the Yahwists (J) : put down in early written form claimed in the 18th century by some scholars as early as possibly c. 950 BC in the southern Kingdom of Judah. Hans Schmidt in 1976 argued that J knew the prophetic books of the 8th and 7th centuries BC, while the prophets did not know the traditions of the Torah, meaning J could not be earlier than the 7th century and that as the J source drew upon Babylonian sources, it was probably written during the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BC (500s). Joel S. Baden in 2009 puts the J source even later.
  
• the Elohist source (E) : first written c. 850 BC in the northern Kingdom of Israel, but compiled into the Bible in its current form much later possibly in 500 BC
  
• the Deuteronomist (D) : written c. 600 BC in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
• the Priestly source (P) : written c. 500 BC by Jewish priests in exile in Babylon

The E source appears to come from the northern part of Israel. Its name comes from Elohim, the term used in the Hebrew and Canaanite languages for the Gods. It is characterized by, among other things, an abstract view of God, using Horeb instead of Sinai for the mountain where Moses received the laws of Israel.

It habitually locates ancestral stories in the north, especially about the Tribe of Ephraim (which happened to be the tribe Jeroboam the first king of Israel (after it broke away from the rule of the House of David) and as a result it probably was composed in that region. The Elohist contains stories of the political position of the Joseph tribes: the birth of Benjamin, and the pre-eminence of Ephraim (all found in Genesis).

There’s also a few differences between this section and the Yahwist. It strongly implies that Isaac was actually sacrificed by is father as Isaac never appears again after the story and Abraham goes onto to have other children. The Yahwist source of course has Isaac surviving and a ram being sacrificed instead. There are other differences as well.

The Book of Deuteronomy appears to be an independent document (D-source). The D-source is believed to have been written in the days of King Josiah (639-609 BC) and also includes the Books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings (including the story of Goliath, re-mentioned in the Quran).

As I said in an earlier post, a broad scholarly consensus has emerged that describes the origin and growth of the D-source the Deuteronomist in the late 7th century BC. So for completeness I’ll re-state it here.

Following the destruction of Israel (the northern kingdom) by Assyria in 721 BC refugees came south to Judah, bringing with them traditions, notably the concept of Yahweh as the only god who should be served, which had not previously been known. Among those influenced by these new ideas were the landowning aristocrats (called "people of the land" in the bible) who provided the administrative elite in Jerusalem. In 640 there was a crisis in Judah when king Amon was murdered. The aristocrats put the ringleaders to death and placed an eight year old child, Josiah, on the throne. Judah at this time was a vassal of Assyria, but Assyria now began a rapid and unexpected decline in power, leading to a resurgence of nationalism in Jerusalem. In 622 BC, Josiah launched his reform program, based on an early form of Deuteronomy 5-26, framed as a covenant (treaty) between Judah and Yahweh in which Yahweh replaced the Assyrian king. By the end of the 7th century Assyria had been replaced by a new imperial power, Babylon.

The trauma of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BC (6th century BC), and the exile which followed, led to much theological reflection on the meaning of the tragedy, and the Deuteronomistic history was re-written and re-edited as an explanation. Israel had been unfaithful to Yahweh, and the exile was God's punishment. By about 540 Babylon was also in rapid decline as the next rising power, Persia, steadily ate away at it. With the end of the Babylonian oppression becoming ever more probable, Deuteronomy was given a new introduction and attached to the history books as an overall theological introduction. The final stage was the addition of a few extra laws following the fall of Babylon to the Persians in 539 BC and the return of some (in practice only a small fraction) of the exiles to Jerusalem. This has been argued by several scholars including the ‘chick’, Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou.

Then there was the P-source (the Priestly source) which some speculate come from priestly writings. P is responsible for the first of the two creation stories (Genesis 1), for Adam's genealogy, part of the Flood story and the genealogy of Abraham back to Shem as well as a couple of other areas.

The Priestly source contributed chapters 25–31 and 35–40 of Exodus including the instructions for making the Ark of the Covenant and the story of its fabrication. The Priestly source also contributed to Chapters 1-27 of Leviticus and Numbers 1–10:28, 15–20, 25–31, and 33–36, including, among other things, two censuses, rulings on the position of Levites and priests (including the provision of special cities for the Levites). The Priestly source in Numbers originally ended with an account of the death of Moses and succession of Joshua ("Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo..."), but when Deuteronomy was added to the Pentateuch this was transferred to the end of Deuteronomy.)

The four sources were combined by a series of editors, firstly by combining J and E to form a combined JE. Since the majority of each text was composed of traditions about events and people associated only with one or other part of the nation (Israel or Judah), combining them would not cause conflict. However, where they differ, (for example one refers to the holy mountain as Sinai and the other as Horeb) neither text could be suppressed, and the differences had to be kept in order that the resulting text was generally acceptable to an audience of both groups.

It is considered unknown how much of the two original texts was cut to produce JE. J is the only source used in JE for the stories of the creation, flood, and genealogies. E starts abruptly with the appearance of Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 20, which makes it appear that some of it was left out.

During the exile JE was unified with P and D by a different editor. JE was then combined with D to form a JED text, and finally JED with P to form JEDP, the final Torah/Pentateuch.

So the bottom line is that the first four books of the Bible were combinations of the J, P and E sources and the fifth was from the D source.

The later Books of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah appear to have been put together in the fifth century BC and finished in their final form during the 3rd century BC. It's cleat that there were different authors here as the two books of Chronicles cover much the same material as the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic history. Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah were probably finished during the 3rd century BC. As for what book were to be included in the canon Old Testament is another story entirely. Whatever the case it's clear that the Old Testament is largely the product of the human imagination with an all too human agenda.



Understanding of what exactly? Someone else’s interpretation of the text?



I fear it is you who is shallow.



I’ll keep making conclusions from the evidence that is available and the conclusions from experts who have studied this in far more detail than I have and who have considered that evidence in the context of other external evidence to reach said conclusion.



That just demonstrates your ignorance.



I critically study and read as widely as I can. You, it appears, do not. I would be suggesting that it not myself who has ‘no idea’.

Wow, truly enlightening post. Thank you Roylion.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

You fail because High School text books change according to the times, and at the whim of bureaucrats. The bureaucrats determine what is sound. The fact that you can't see this happening right now, today, leads me to believe that you have no idea about this subject.

The bible has been edited upteen times.

The Quran has not been edited once. Does that mean the Quaran is more, or in actual reality, any less legitimate than the Bible?

 

[Procrastinator35]

this post and J2Ss next 8 posts after it by J2S are some of the most brilliant logical, commonsense and concise postings i have read on this subject, great stuff J2S.

i did start a thread with a poll re the god v advanced alien entity question a while ago (advanced alien entity won) which was merged with the god question thread by a mod, and my argument was the same ie. the numbers/probabilities and the mere fact that we exist confirms the hypothesis IMO.

Maybe you could pen a love-poem to him via p.m.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Yet for over 8000 years human beings lived and thrived with their religions and gods - without the benefits of modern science.
How long has it been predicted that we will survive with our modern scientific/industrial world?

Let's just go back to the stone age then, shall we?

Let's stone the homosexuals. Let's own our women as possessions, hell I'm lazy so let's bring back the bible-endorsed slavery because I'll be damned if I'm going to go out and bust my arse in the field. s**t, we won't have to work on Sunday's either.

And if you argue with me I might just come around and murder you because that's the way it was back then.

Let's blame science for all of our problems. Science is the reason why people do bad things, yeah? It's not the people with their own individual motivations that cause them to do bad things, it's science.

Your line of argument is absolutely mind-numbingly stupid and totally absolves us of any sort of accountability for the stupid decisions we make. We are all innocent because science is the real bad guy.

In short - we, the people, are the cause of our problems. People use science, religion and a myriad of other personal agendas to help meet their ends both good and bad.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Maybe you could pen a love-poem to him via p.m.

Maybe you could offer a single satisfactory point, just one, instead of either deflecting or picking up grammar mistakes in posts.

 

[Present Not Past]

The bible has been edited upteen times.

The Quran has not been edited once. Does that mean the Quaran is more, or in actual reality, any less legitimate than the Bible?

What a stupid statement considering how old and how many times these texts have been translated and reproduced.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

What a stupid statement considering how old and how many times these texts have been translated and reproduced.

Well that is coming from Muslims themselves and it's something they take pride in, so you take that up with them.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Apologies for picking on you specifically.
But explain how the 'fact' that 'most cultures' believe in a god is in any way evidence that a god or gods exists?
In fact this shows that all primitive uneducated cultures looked to explain the un-explainable (volcanoes, earthquakes, famines, crops dying out, plagues.... etc. etc.) as they simply weren't intelligent enough to reason out the true origins of their problems. I believe this is called the 'god of the gaps.' You can't explain something so god must have done it.
All cultures, we can agree, were primitive and uneducated at one point. We know this to be true because it has been proven throughout history and through their trials and discoveries we are now able to live the life we do. So you could say the human race has evolved, evolved to a point now where we can explain why volcanoes erupt, why earthquakes occur, why crops die out, why swarms of locusts destroy whole fields of crops, etc. and I'll give you a hot tip - it's not because of god.

Maybe our so-called 'education', tv & 'rushed-lives' blind us to the simple truths?....I'm no where as ready to be so dismissive of 50,000 years of culture in labeling them all as 'primitive' for their beliefs in Gods.

The breadth & scope of your hubris is duly noted, for the tarp of ignorance it conceals.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Maybe our so-called 'education', tv & 'rushed-lives' blind us to the simple truths?....I'm no where as ready to be so dismissive of 50,000 years of culture in labeling them all as 'primitive' for their beliefs in Gods.

The breadth & scope of your hubris is duly noted, for the tarp of ignorance it conceals.

Your poetic words change nothing. These people were primitive and uneducated as a whole, this is an undeniable fact.

You haven't actually addressed the point of the post and have yet again tried played the deflection card. Try again please, though this time explain to me how in any way all of these primitive societies believing in whatever god(s) they believed in, somehow, is evidence for the existence of their god(s)?

My point is that these primitive societies believed in their gods due to natural things that occurred around them that they could not explain. To explain these happenings away they claimed that it was their god that did it for whatever reason.

People don't believe the sun is a god anymore. People don't believe that harsh seas are due to Poseidon being angry. Zues isn't throwing down lightning bolts in anger. Hurricanes aren't god's holy wrath. Swarms of locusts don't eat our crops because god saw two boys kissing. Gaia didn't cause earthquakes, etc. etc.

Luckily we are smarter now, we are not primitive. We have access to knowledge, and thankfully have scientific breakthroughs that have provided us with the answers that explain away these superstitions kinds of clearly stupid superstitions.

Anyhow where does 50,000 years come from? The bible tells me the world is only approximately 6,000 years old.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

So at the end of the day we have literally no evidence to ever suggest there is or was or will be an all-powerful god.

In the corner for (a Christian) god, we have:
a) an antiquated book full of contradictions, questionable (to put it lightly) morals and stories that are so ridiculous it's no surprise they have been debunked time and time again.
b) faith, which by definition is the belief in something with literally no evidence to support said belief.
c) a completely convoluted breakdown of beliefs that the religious cannot agree on within their own religions, let alone across all of the other varying religions spawned throughout the world.

Meanwhile, in the corner for Atheism we have:
a) scientific facts and theories.
b) actual evidence to support said facts and theories.
c) common sense.

Well I think that just about wraps this thread up.

 

[Total Power]

No scientists, no bombs....Stop with the nonsense.

If these science geeks had any moral compass whatsoever, then they wouldn't turn a blind-eye to the ends of their work....Which is human destruction on a world-wide scale.

Enough with your apologist nonsense.

Here we go again, you knocking science, never in doubt. No science no internet, no mobile, no tv, no cable, no medicine, no airplane etc etc and you have to pick on "bombs"?? really? so you reckon if there were no bombs humans will have no other way to kill each other? history hasnt taught you anything. Since when "bombs" been used to commit most mass genocide historically? Humans will kill each other, with bombs or without bombs, that is a given. We are our own worst enemy and more importantly our planets worst enemy. Only fools blame it on science.

 

[Total Power]

So at the end of the day we have literally no evidence to ever suggest there is or was or will be an all-powerful god.

In the corner for (a Christian) god, we have:
a) an antiquated book full of contradictions, questionable (to put it lightly) morals and stories that are so ridiculous it's no surprise they have been debunked time and time again.
b) faith, which by definition is the belief in something with literally no evidence to support said belief.
c) a completely convoluted breakdown of beliefs that the religious cannot agree on within their own religions, let alone across all of the other varying religions spawned throughout the world.

Meanwhile, in the corner for Atheism we have:
a) scientific facts and theories.
b) actual evidence to support said facts and theories.
c) common sense.

Well I think that just about wraps this thread up.

I think that science has an oversupply of mechanistic minded folk, and that those who have a different tangent like Bohm and Planck, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Tesla etc among others are quickly dismissed as tending toward psuedo-science (or because of their contributions to science are more kindly regarded as 'slightly eccentric').

I also think that theories can be so influenced by world-view. This naturally cuts both ways (see dismissal of above scientific theories above by p35).

Some scientists professing to understanding "truth" through observation are kidding themselves. They may be just like the prisoners in Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

"We have observed, named forms and reached concensus...we know the truth!"

It is why I much prefer David Bohm's humility in explaining the role of perception in science (specifically quantum mechanics).

 

[M Malice]

Maybe you could pen a love-poem to him via p.m.

i would call it an appreciation poem P35, i couldn't bring myself to love anyone i conversed with on the google machine. i would need evidence that they were a flesh and blood person before jumping in.

J2S is such a welcome addition to the god question and alike threads, with J2S, Roy, TP, chelcarl among others on the heathens side we are an unbeatable force, you can't lose when you have commonsense, logic, evidence and peer review on your side.

 

[Procrastinator35]

i would call it an appreciation poem P35, i couldn't bring myself to love anyone i conversed with on the google machine. i would need evidence that they were a flesh and blood person before jumping in.

J2S is such a welcome addition to the god question and alike threads, with J2S, Roy, TP, chelcarl among others on the heathens side we are an unbeatable force, you can't lose when you have commonsense, logic, evidence and peer review on your side.

Oh?....I'll just make a phone call to God & check on that....One moment please.

Yes, yes....It's just as I thought....God thinks you're hilarious.

 

[Total Power]

Oh?....I'll just make a phone call to God & check on that....One moment please.

Yes, yes....It's just as I thought....God thinks you're hilarious.

Serious question, why are you so aggressive all the time? this is internet we dont know each other but it can tell us heaps about the person we are conversing with cause here you can talk without filters. If someone disagrees with you, you can either play the ball or play the man, (i have done both but i make a conscious effort to avoid the latter), it does speak heaps about you as a person. For someone who claims to have an understanding of religion/mythology which apparently promotes tolerance, you are not a very tolerant person at all. Disagreement is fine, sniping and abuse isn't

 

[M Malice]

Oh?....I'll just make a phone call to God & check on that....One moment please.

Yes, yes....It's just as I thought....God thinks you're hilarious.

next time you speak to him/her ask him/her if she/he wants to submit to the peer review process to prove his/her existence, would be good for the god business you would think.

 

[Procrastinator35]

next time you speak to him/her ask him/her if she/he wants to submit to the peer review process to prove his/her existence, would be good for the god business you would think.

A peer review on God....Now you are taking the mickey.

 

[M Malice]

A peer review on God....Now you are taking the mickey.

just working on my comedy skills, seeing god appreciated it so much.

 

[Total Power]

just working on my comedy skills, seeing god appreciated it so much.

You know sometimes i feel some people need to take a chill pill and take a long hard look at themselves instead of attacking a certain field of study. Science is our friend, not our enemy, how we use science is upto us, humans. But most advancement in human history has been on the back of science. Science is actually neutral, it doesnt speak about god (cue evolution), yet certain types feel threatened by it.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

You know sometimes i feel some people need to take a chill pill and take a long hard look at themselves instead of attacking a certain field of study. Science is our friend, not our enemy, how we use science is upto us, humans. But most advancement in human history has been on the back of science. Science is actually neutral, it doesnt speak about god (cue evolution), yet certain types feel threatened by it.

They're threatened by it because it clearly exposes their long-held 'sacred' beliefs to be an utter sham. That must be a hard thing to face up to.