A question for the theists

[Guest alex]

There could be a God tbh. The Bible's way off the mark though. I'm not sure people do have an innate sense of right and wrong though. I firmly believe we are what we are as a result of a combination of nature and nurture. And the way we nurture children is (in a lot of cases) as a result of all the acquired knowledge of the past and the way this has changed due to attitudes changing with time. If you look at Victorian times, people were much more religious, but the morality was (largely) a sham.

Edited March 2, 2007 by alex

[Park Life 70]

There could be a God tbh. The Bible's way off the mark though. I'm sure people do have an innate sense of right and wrong though. I firmly believe we are what we are as a result of a combination of nature and nurture. And the way we nurture children is (in a lot of cases) as a result of all the acquired knowledge of the past and the way this has changed due to attitudes changing with time. If you look at Victorian times, people were much more religious, but the morality was (largely) a sham.

 

Alex blatantly taking out insurance.

[Renton 17609]

Interesting about high moral codes / standards and being an atheist.

 

The legal system in the UK is to a large extent based on religious laws (our constituion was based on it years back). All of our current moral codes have their roots in religious laws. An individual who acts 'with high moral standards' in our current society (accepted by norms and generally held view) is basically using laws that have been codified into society by religion.

 

Where does the atheist's high moral code come from? What are the main justifications for their rules?

 

That sign in the Trent

 

 

But that's basically true, people have an innate sense of right and wrong which has diddly squat to do with religion. There are many theories on why humans have evolved to be altruistic, and it's not unique to us - there are examples in other animals too. Religion might have initially codified it but now it is entrenched in secular law do we really need religion? Why is i that the most secular nations are the most "civilised"? Why is it that the most religious states in America tend to have the worst crime levels?

 

NJS has argued this point successfully many times as I'm sure you are aware.

 

Hang on!!!! If people have an 'innate sense of right and wrong' then where the fuck did that come from then? There a morality gene that requires no socialisation or parenting that would kick in to create a moral code in a for want of a better phrase 'social vaccuum'?

 

Surely your innate sense of right and wrong is the strongest argument for god so far in this thread?

 

No, it's a product of altruism resulting from evolution and is seen in many animals and birds. It has been reinforced since we became self-aware and capable of philosophy. It doesn't take a genius to work out that the sign on the Trent will benefit us all. Alex put it very succinctly there tbf.

 

I have no belief whatsoever in God, but I have a strong belief that it is wrong to harm another person. How do you account for that? Upbringing might account for some of it but why should atheists, secularists or humanitarians provide worse upbringings for their children than theists?

[Guest alex]

Interesting about high moral codes / standards and being an atheist.

 

The legal system in the UK is to a large extent based on religious laws (our constituion was based on it years back). All of our current moral codes have their roots in religious laws. An individual who acts 'with high moral standards' in our current society (accepted by norms and generally held view) is basically using laws that have been codified into society by religion.

 

Where does the atheist's high moral code come from? What are the main justifications for their rules?

 

That sign in the Trent

 

 

But that's basically true, people have an innate sense of right and wrong which has diddly squat to do with religion. There are many theories on why humans have evolved to be altruistic, and it's not unique to us - there are examples in other animals too. Religion might have initially codified it but now it is entrenched in secular law do we really need religion? Why is i that the most secular nations are the most "civilised"? Why is it that the most religious states in America tend to have the worst crime levels?

 

NJS has argued this point successfully many times as I'm sure you are aware.

 

Hang on!!!! If people have an 'innate sense of right and wrong' then where the fuck did that come from then? There a morality gene that requires no socialisation or parenting that would kick in to create a moral code in a, for want of a better phrase, 'social vaccuum'?

 

Surely your innate sense of right and wrong is the strongest argument for god so far in this thread?

 

Chez with one light swoop of his pork sword has them by the balls!11

 

 

.....enter stage left Descartes..

How to polarise a debate by Parky. You any relation to Leazesmag?

[Guest alex]

There could be a God tbh. The Bible's way off the mark though. I'm sure people do have an innate sense of right and wrong though. I firmly believe we are what we are as a result of a combination of nature and nurture. And the way we nurture children is (in a lot of cases) as a result of all the acquired knowledge of the past and the way this has changed due to attitudes changing with time. If you look at Victorian times, people were much more religious, but the morality was (largely) a sham.

 

Alex blatantly taking out insurance.

You're assuming I've always maintained there definitely isn't one, I really don't know one way or the other. My Leazes comment was very apt tbh.

[Park Life 70]

Interesting about high moral codes / standards and being an atheist.

 

The legal system in the UK is to a large extent based on religious laws (our constituion was based on it years back). All of our current moral codes have their roots in religious laws. An individual who acts 'with high moral standards' in our current society (accepted by norms and generally held view) is basically using laws that have been codified into society by religion.

 

Where does the atheist's high moral code come from? What are the main justifications for their rules?

 

That sign in the Trent

 

 

But that's basically true, people have an innate sense of right and wrong which has diddly squat to do with religion. There are many theories on why humans have evolved to be altruistic, and it's not unique to us - there are examples in other animals too. Religion might have initially codified it but now it is entrenched in secular law do we really need religion? Why is i that the most secular nations are the most "civilised"? Why is it that the most religious states in America tend to have the worst crime levels?

 

NJS has argued this point successfully many times as I'm sure you are aware.

 

Hang on!!!! If people have an 'innate sense of right and wrong' then where the fuck did that come from then? There a morality gene that requires no socialisation or parenting that would kick in to create a moral code in a, for want of a better phrase, 'social vaccuum'?

 

Surely your innate sense of right and wrong is the strongest argument for god so far in this thread?

 

Chez with one light swoop of his pork sword has them by the balls!11

 

 

.....enter stage left Descartes..

How to polarise a debate by Parky. You any relation to Leazesmag?

 

 

 

 

"I love the sound of breaking glass"...Do do do de do de do do DAO.....

Edited March 2, 2007 by Parky

[Guest alex]

What a tiresome wum you are Parkster.

[Isegrim 8868]

That simply isn't true in many countries though, such as most the islamic world and the US. About half the population of the US believe the world is 6000 years old. Many believe Armageddon is imminent. This level of ignorance can only have massive negative effects on mankind and our future on the planet.

Yes, and those who believe this and want it taught in America are splitters and nutters, mostly evangelical fundamentalists. This doesn't mean that the main christian churches have a different view point. When it comes to Islam there is a huge diversity in viewpoints regarding creation & evolution and how to fit in Darwin in the Qur'an. But especially western academics have no problem and so have a lot of muslims being brought up in the western world.

 

As for Armageddon, with the latest UN climate report and the human impact on the "creation" they might have a point...

 

Exactly, you're talking from the viewpoint of a western academic. The reality of the situation in the US though is that about half of the population believe in the Bible literally though, a viewpoint that not only contradicts almost every aspect of modern science, but lends itself to horrendous bigotry. Armageddon is becoming a self fulfilling prophecy, there is no motive for people to change their actions on this planet when they are secure in the knowledge that they are promised eternal bliss through salvation, is there? This could be religion's most damaging legacy yet.

 

You don't even have to look at the American population...Dubya himself is well gone on these matters..THAT is frightening.

 

Yes, he is a believer in the Rapture, it should scare everyone. Isegrim talks as if religious fundamentalism isn't a problem, but it is a huge one in the only true super power the world has. I might add that atheists in the US are discriminated against more than any other minority group - it is virtually impossible to hold public office there without being demonstrably Christian. And yet its the churches that think they are being persecuted by science!

I have never said that religious fundamentalism isn't a problem. I think you are in danger of starting to do a Leazes as in putting words in other people's mouths. I have said several times that I see those people as religious nutters. But I think I have quite a good inside view of the main believes and doctrines of the major christian churches (which are not the far right American Evangelicals, even if they are becoming more and more important there with nutters like Bush or formerly Ashcroft).

 

But you are tarring all religions with the same (fundamentalistic) brush of being anti-scientific nowadays, e.g. ignoring evolution etc. I really question who it is who is forcing his viewpoint on others here...

[ChezGiven 0]

Interesting about high moral codes / standards and being an atheist.

 

The legal system in the UK is to a large extent based on religious laws (our constituion was based on it years back). All of our current moral codes have their roots in religious laws. An individual who acts 'with high moral standards' in our current society (accepted by norms and generally held view) is basically using laws that have been codified into society by religion.

 

Where does the atheist's high moral code come from? What are the main justifications for their rules?

 

That sign in the Trent

 

 

But that's basically true, people have an innate sense of right and wrong which has diddly squat to do with religion. There are many theories on why humans have evolved to be altruistic, and it's not unique to us - there are examples in other animals too. Religion might have initially codified it but now it is entrenched in secular law do we really need religion? Why is i that the most secular nations are the most "civilised"? Why is it that the most religious states in America tend to have the worst crime levels?

 

NJS has argued this point successfully many times as I'm sure you are aware.

 

Hang on!!!! If people have an 'innate sense of right and wrong' then where the fuck did that come from then? There a morality gene that requires no socialisation or parenting that would kick in to create a moral code in a for want of a better phrase 'social vaccuum'?

 

Surely your innate sense of right and wrong is the strongest argument for god so far in this thread?

 

No, it's a product of altruism resulting from evolution and is seen in many animals and birds. It has been reinforced since we became self-aware and capable of philosophy. It doesn't take a genius to work out that the sign on the Trent will benefit us all. Alex put it very succinctly there tbf.

 

I have no belief whatsoever in God, but I have a strong belief that it is wrong to harm another person. How do you account for that? Upbringing might account for some of it but why should atheists, secularists or humanitarians provide worse upbringings for their children than theists?

 

Sure altruism is useful for us and other species to further their survival but then again, killing is also sometimes in our best interest. It generally is more useful for carnivorous animals.

 

The hardest part of this morality/god debate is the bit that you also understandably struggle with above in bold. The evolutionists say that these moral codes helped us survive as a species. However, if that is not always true then why act in a moral way? Just for the innate sense of goodness? Since good/bad is relative, how is good defined in an absolute sense so you know what it is?

 

I dont think we'll crack this tbh.

 

For the record i'm agnostic.

[Renton 17609]

That simply isn't true in many countries though, such as most the islamic world and the US. About half the population of the US believe the world is 6000 years old. Many believe Armageddon is imminent. This level of ignorance can only have massive negative effects on mankind and our future on the planet.

Yes, and those who believe this and want it taught in America are splitters and nutters, mostly evangelical fundamentalists. This doesn't mean that the main christian churches have a different view point. When it comes to Islam there is a huge diversity in viewpoints regarding creation & evolution and how to fit in Darwin in the Qur'an. But especially western academics have no problem and so have a lot of muslims being brought up in the western world.

 

As for Armageddon, with the latest UN climate report and the human impact on the "creation" they might have a point...

 

Exactly, you're talking from the viewpoint of a western academic. The reality of the situation in the US though is that about half of the population believe in the Bible literally though, a viewpoint that not only contradicts almost every aspect of modern science, but lends itself to horrendous bigotry. Armageddon is becoming a self fulfilling prophecy, there is no motive for people to change their actions on this planet when they are secure in the knowledge that they are promised eternal bliss through salvation, is there? This could be religion's most damaging legacy yet.

 

You don't even have to look at the American population...Dubya himself is well gone on these matters..THAT is frightening.

 

Yes, he is a believer in the Rapture, it should scare everyone. Isegrim talks as if religious fundamentalism isn't a problem, but it is a huge one in the only true super power the world has. I might add that atheists in the US are discriminated against more than any other minority group - it is virtually impossible to hold public office there without being demonstrably Christian. And yet its the churches that think they are being persecuted by science!

I have never said that religious fundamentalism isn't a problem. I think you are in danger of starting to do a Leazes as in putting words in other people's mouths. I have said several times that I see those people as religious nutters. But I think I have quite a good inside view of the main believes and doctrines of the major christian churches (which are not the far right American Evangelicals, even if they are becoming more and more important there with nutters like Bush or formerly Ashcroft).

 

But you are tarring all religions with the same (fundamentalistic) brush of being anti-scientific nowadays, e.g. ignoring evolution etc. I really question who it is who is forcing his viewpoint on others here...

 

By calling them nutters you are implying they are some kind of lunatic fringe, and therefore not likely to be very influential. But in the US, they are very much the mainstream, and the US has much more power than the German confederation of enlightened theistic lawyers.

 

I'm not trying to force my views on anyone, I am well aware this is a messageboard! You've already opted out of the questions raised by my initial post though, it seems you don't like thinking about it too much.

[Isegrim 8868]

By calling them nutters you are implying they are some kind of lunatic fringe, and therefore not likely to be very influential. But in the US, they are very much the mainstream, and the US has much more power than the German confederation of enlightened theistic lawyers.

 

I'm not trying to force my views on anyone, I am well aware this is a messageboard! You've already opted out of the questions raised by my initial post though, it seems you don't like thinking about it too much.

If I haven't answered any question it is because I didn't bother reading this thread at first and only started reading the latter parts today and then entered the debate. Some of the points raised by the atheists on this board are as repetitive as LeazesMag's stance on Shepherd. Some of them are valid, some are a bit blinkered imho.

 

As I said I think certain people nutters when it comes to the questions raised in this thread (as much as I have read of it) when it comes to the modern relationship between science and religion and differ from the view points of the main Christian churches. I have never questioned that they don't have a big influence especially in the US. And something that especially differs are the methods of the interpretation of the bible. It is funny that it are rather the scientists (along the religious nutters) who still feel the need to take the bible literally, while the modern approach from the main Christian churches seems far more enlightened by the predominant historical critical text method since the late 15th century.

 

As for how much I think about these things: As I am a legal historian mainly working on the relationship between church law and civil law and the foundations of modern civil law I think that I am thinking and knowing about a lot of things concerning this matter. But don't worry, you don't have to bring your "qualifications" up as well.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Isegrim

[Renton 17609]

By calling them nutters you are implying they are some kind of lunatic fringe, and therefore not likely to be very influential. But in the US, they are very much the mainstream, and the US has much more power than the German confederation of enlightened theistic lawyers.

 

I'm not trying to force my views on anyone, I am well aware this is a messageboard! You've already opted out of the questions raised by my initial post though, it seems you don't like thinking about it too much.

If I haven't answered any question it is because I didn't bother reading this thread at first and only started reading the latter parts today and then entered the debate. Some of the points raised by the atheists on this board are as repetitive as LeazesMag's stance on Shepherd. Some of them are valid, some are a bit blinkered imho.

 

As I said I think certain people nutters when it comes to the questions raised in this thread (as much as I have read of it) when it comes to the modern relationship between science and religion and differ from the view points of the main Christian churches. I have never questioned that they don't have a big influence especially in the US. And something that especially differs are the methods of the interpretation of the bible. It is funny that it are rather the scientists (along the religious nutters) who still feel the need to take the bible literally, while the modern approach from the main Christian churches seems far more enlightened by the predominant historical critical text method since the late 15th century.

 

As for how much I think about these things: As I am a legal historian mainly working on the relationship between church law and civil law and the foundations of modern civil law I think that I am thinking and knowing about a lot of things concerning this matter. But don't worry, you don't have to bring your "qualifications" up as well.

 

Well the thread has drifted away from the original point which no-one seems bothered by.

 

But if you don't take the Bible literally, how do you know what to accept and what to discard, or what is a metaphor and what isn't? Sorry if I'm being too Leazes there, but I can't recall that one ever being answered.

 

Final question, if, and it's a big if, the unified theory came to fruition and completely explained the origin of the Universe without the need for a God, where would that leave religion?

[Isegrim 8868]

Well the thread has drifted away from the original point which no-one seems bothered by.

Did you really think it would stay on topic for more than three posts?

 

But if you don't take the Bible literally, how do you know what to accept and what to discard, or what is a metaphor and what isn't? Sorry if I'm being too Leazes there, but I can't recall that one ever being answered.

Well, that is called interpretation and text analysis. Is this that much of a difficult concept for a scientist?

 

Final question, if, and it's a big if, the unified theory came to fruition and completely explained the origin of the Universe without the need for a God, where would that leave religion?

If the dog won't take a shit it might catch the big rabbit.

 

I don't dispute their might be a hypothetical scenario that leaves no ground for religion and metaphysical questions as everything will be scientifically explained . But as long as that isn't the case I have no problem with religion as an institution (or churches for that matter) although I have a somewhat deistic even agnostic approach to certain things myself. But I grant everybody the right to believe what he wants, be it a personal god, a 12 ft lizard or none whatsoever as long as it isn't conflicting with human rights of others.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Isegrim

[Guest alex]

Well the thread has drifted away from the original point which no-one seems bothered by.

Did you really think it would stay on topic for more than three posts?

 

But if you don't take the Bible literally, how do you know what to accept and what to discard, or what is a metaphor and what isn't? Sorry if I'm being too Leazes there, but I can't recall that one ever being answered.

Well, that is called interpretation and text analysis. Is this that much of a difficult concept for a scientist?

 

Final question, if, and it's a big if, the unified theory came to fruition and completely explained the origin of the Universe without the need for a God, where would that leave religion?

If the dog won't take a shit it might catch the big rabbit.

 

I don't dispute their might be a hypothetical scenario that leaves no ground for religion and metaphysical question as everything will be scientifically explained . But as long as that isn't the case I have no problem with religion as an institution (or churches for that matter) although I have a somewhat deistic even agnostic approach to certain things myself. But I grant everybody the right to believe what he wants, be it a personal god, a 12 ft lizard or none whatsoever as not as it isn't conflicting with human rights of others.

It was a good post btw, but that bit made me laugh out loud.

[Renton 17609]

Well the thread has drifted away from the original point which no-one seems bothered by.

Did you really think it would stay on topic for more than three posts?

 

But if you don't take the Bible literally, how do you know what to accept and what to discard, or what is a metaphor and what isn't? Sorry if I'm being too Leazes there, but I can't recall that one ever being answered.

Well, that is called interpretation and text analysis. Is this that much of a difficult concept for a scientist?

 

Final question, if, and it's a big if, the unified theory came to fruition and completely explained the origin of the Universe without the need for a God, where would that leave religion?

If the dog won't take a shit it might catch the big rabbit.

 

I don't dispute their might be a hypothetical scenario that leaves no ground for religion and metaphysical question as everything will be scientifically explained . But as long as that isn't the case I have no problem with religion as an institution (or churches for that matter) although I have a somewhat deistic even agnostic approach to certain things myself. But I grant everybody the right to believe what he wants, be it a personal god, a 12 ft lizard or none whatsoever as not as it isn't conflicting with human rights of others.

It was a good post btw, but that bit made me laugh out loud.

 

That metaphor is made by the dodgy use of English! Better than my German though.

 

And yes, Isegrim, I have problems with "text analysis" and "interpretation", particularly when those texts have been selected on an entirely arbritrary basis in the first place, with no evidence to show their authenticity. "You can believe what you want" appears to be the message from such subjectivity, and as a scientist I find that entirely unacceptable.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Renton

[Fop 1]

But I grant everybody the right to believe what he wants, be it a personal god, a 12 ft lizard or none whatsoever as not as it isn't conflicting with human rights of others.

 

I'd have said the big problem with religion is when it starts to force others to believe what they want you to believe.

 

But tbh after having seen this country in the last 10 years I think the biggest problem currently is when it tries to force people to accede to their "demands" and whether those people believe or not seems to be irrelevant to what are pretty much just political power grabs (especially when they start to use the sword of “human rights” to crush others “human rights”).

 

Frankly much organised religion has next to nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with political power.

 

 

But that goes back to the inherent corruption and self interest of 99.9% of humans when given power…… in that context maybe it would be for the best for the Giant Pink Sky Lobster to come down and save us all (or maybe just wipe us out).

[Isegrim 8868]

That metaphor is made by the dodgy use of English! Better than my German though.

Yep, I know my grammar let's me down from time to time. It's a variation from my favourite German proverb to describe historical events which had ended differently without a certain cause.

 

And yes, Isegrim, I have problems with "text analysis" and "interpretation", particularly when those texts have been selected on an entirely arbritrary basis in the first place, with no evidence to show their authenticity. "You can believe what you want" appears to be the message from such subjectivity, and as a scientist I find that entirely unacceptable.

Well, that's a methodical problem. As I said the standard today is the historical critical method which acknowledges that the bible is just a historical transcript influenced by a lot of things like oral tradition, personal believes and other uncertainties and where you first have to try to recover a "pure" version. And of course there is a lot of subjectivity involved, especially in the protestant approach without someone having the primacy of interpretation. So it is all about what is made out of these texts. A text like the bible can't be handled like a scientific formula where you get your heureka and that is it. But if you set up the premise that the book is of no worth anyway then there is of course no need of interpretation...

[Renton 17609]

Your English is excellent btw Isegrim, both written and verbal. The odd mistake is quite endearing but you're still far more legible than 99% of N-O (no flame war intended).

[Isegrim 8868]

Your English is excellent btw Isegrim, both written and verbal. The odd mistake is quite endearing but you're still far more legible than 99% of N-O (no flame war intended).

Thanks, especially when it comes directly after a post where I wrote let's instead of lets...

[Park Life 70]

Quite frankly the bible is a red herring in this debate.

[Renton 17609]

Quite frankly the bible is a red herring in this debate.

 

Quite frrankly you are a red herring in this debate.

[Park Life 70]

Quite frankly the bible is a red herring in this debate.

 

Quite frrankly you are a red herring in this debate.

 

Well it means different things to different people hardly a point of referance for a pseudo-debate of this calibre..Grow up.

[Renton 17609]

Quite frankly the bible is a red herring in this debate.

 

Quite frrankly you are a red herring in this debate.

 

Well it means different things to different people hardly a point of referance for a pseudo-debate of this calibre..Grow up.

 

[Park Life 70]

Quite frankly the bible is a red herring in this debate.

 

Quite frrankly you are a red herring in this debate.

 

Well it means different things to different people hardly a point of referance for a pseudo-debate of this calibre..Grow up.

 

 

 

I still like this thread mind. Just think the bible is getting in the way here cause it's meaning is so reletavised depending on who is quoting it, as you yourself recognise vis a vie the Christian right wing in America. For me this debate has always been about belief and more to do with a sense of mysticism and spritituality and of course aspects of which can be found in the beauty and wondrment of science. Once we slip into the realms of morals and meaning we have to be clear that these meanings are fluid and measures of morality have to be colonised within a cultural framework.

[NJS 3960]

Briefly read todays posts so a scatter gun reply is in order:

 

If we descended from an incestuous family 6000 years ago in the middle east then you could argue morals come from the biblical God via stone tablets.

 

We Didn't and they don't.

 

All of the civilisations that developed before the jewish one, all those that developed concurrently with them and all the ones that have developed since share, despite a myriad of faith beleifs, a core set of moral values:

 

Don't kill, don't rape, don't steal and all of the related variations. The idea that we need a particular God or indeed any to "keep us right" is plainly ridiculous in my view. The idea that English law is based on a Christian view of these is also wishful thinking - theres plenty of rape and murder in the bible sanctioned by God (and enshrined in his laws) so those laws were "cherry picked" once again - what tool is used for this cherry picking? - the same evolved morality that exists throughout the world.

 

Altruism which leads to morals come from mutually beneficial exhanges. As man started to form communities beyond the family unit its obvious that on a long term basis building bridges with other groups is a better "plan" than simply killing them - that obviously happened but the fact that we developed these morals to me proves that thy were naturally selected for in that we survive now. That doesn't mean everyone is "nice" but I'll also bet that the percentage of people who think normal morals are wrong has dramatically reduced in the last 10000 years which is of course a blink of the eye in evolution terms.

 

Turning once again to Isegrim's assertion that the big bang and the 14Bn year thing aren't that big a problem I'd beg to differ. The God(s) of all human religions are very local and very current - they only look after their own and they have plans (like biblical prophices) which only take 100s of years. At the same time we are constantly told he/they is/are that powerful that they can do anything they want so why not just click their fingers rather than start 14bn year projects? Why do so many believe armageddon is imminent which again when you consider 2000 years Vs 4.5bn years looks daft? Why use phrases like "his one and only son" if God has billions of planets to play with?

 

Earlier I said its the "obvious" answers that people ignore that bug me. Religions are a product of the fear and ignorance of very young civilisations who sought answers to everyday things like why the wind blows. I see them as a youthful myth like Santa that we haven't quite rejected yet but will in time. The only things that will stop that is the continued over use of respect in questioning them and the lack of education in the thir world - it won't happen in my lifetime but I hope it won't be too long.

 

On the "people have the right to believe anything" thing I'd say yes but within reason. When it starts to affect other people then I think there has to be a framework of acceptability - that can be as simple as making barbarism like female circumcision or child abusive exorcisms completely illegal but I also think it should include stuff like teaching creationism in schools. "Beliefs" can only go so far - you can't "believe" that 2+2=5 or that Germany won World War II or that the holocaust is a myth without being quite rightly ridiculed so why is it okay to say that the world is 6000 years old?

 

Bodies like the catholic church have been forced to change their dogma because of science to appear more "reasonable" than the US evangelists but it won't fool me until they explain how the biblical God (not Isegrim's Deist one) fits in with the universe.