I 'believe' in Evolution

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, no, as in (likely...if I may be so bold Mystic) the very notion is bare ethnocentric garbage. Don't get me wrong, the creation narrative -is- ethnocentric garbage, but it's redeeming quality is that it is only a fairy tale.

[IATIA]

Hum. You don't take the word of the bible as gospel, I take it?

As in most cases, the interpretation is dependent upon the support necessary for the argument at hand.

[Brunitski]

Hum. You don't take the word of the bible as gospel, I take it?

As in most cases, the interpretation is dependent upon the support necessary for the argument at hand.

Even so, as William Tell said; that's a pretty long bow!

[Creed of Heresy]

I always loved how the bible was taken LITERALLY throughout its entire existence until the last half-century, when science began actively disproving the entire bible and all of its mythical shit to be completely and wholly impossible.

Here is the story of religion, children, as told by Creed but practiced by the world: Claim A is made. Foolish simpletons believe in claim. Centuries, millenia pass. Not-simple-minded individuals inquiring over the many many years notice that Claim A isn't very feasible. Others take notice. More deluded followers of Claim A's "divinity" begin switching words around and begin looking for meaning that is not there, until they begin to fall back on the claims of parables and misinterpretations until the whole thing falls apart as the adherents push Claim A to the point of irrelevance in their desperation to make it sound plausible [ultimately failing to do so]. Claim B is then made, which makes more sense, learning from the mistakes of its prior claimants, carefully pruning its stories to make it less fallible. Cycle then follows same pattern. Eventually, people begin to question all wild claims brought before them, and in place of claims comes observation, scrutiny, and skepticism.

If you don't know what I am speaking of, feel free to read through a few history books.

The Abrahamic religions are coming under scrutiny and more and more the theists scurry to square away the fallacies of their supposedly infallible book of certainties and truth, lest it be exposed as the delusional fantasy that, at its heart, it truly is.

So Noah's Ark is just a tale, right? Then do tell me, what relevance does it have? None at all, basically. So what's this irrelevant, fictional tale doing in a book that supposedly contains the absolute truth? That is a paradox. There are many like it in the bible. The bible is fallible, ergo I see no reason to take anything it says at face value, so I just have to wonder why anyone else does. The ultimate answer, of course, is that they are deluded, incapable of seeing reason, and not worth anyone's time.

Those that truly can still reason, however, will inevitably find themselves faced with questions that they will have to lock away in a very deep, dark, festering part of themselves, because if they face them, they will never be able to truly square them away with reality...

I can see you desperately swinging around, Polaris, I can see you stuffing those questions down into the pits of your mind. They're going to eat at you. You can continue to lie to yourself or you can bring the questions out into the light and accept the answers and stop fooling yourself. Or you can keep hiding them. It's up to you, but I wouldn't recommend keeping something like that buried, it won't be very pleasant to deal with later in life...

Now, back to the biology...you know, the REAL stuff that ACTUALLY EXISTS.

[Edwardo Piet]

@ the OP.

Sorry but, whether you like it or not, you can't logically 'know' evolution to be a fact without also believing it is. So if you know evolution is true, you believe it is true. Obviously religious belief isn't the only kind of belief. I believe I am typing this post up using my computer for instance, and there's evidence for that so, relatively, I 'know' it. I can't disbelieve it and 'know' it.

Belief is not the same thing as faith.

[IATIA]

"The average population size has no association with extinction risk over the history of marine animals."

[Faith No More]

I always loved how the bible was taken LITERALLY throughout its entire existence until the last half-century, when science began actively disproving the entire bible and all of its mythical shit to be completely and wholly impossible.

A bit off topic here, but according to Karen Armstrong in her book The Battle For God(which I admittedly didn't finish), the bible was not taken literally until the age of the Enlightenment when the scientific method had become the top method of discerning truth. Seeing the success of science, one man whose name eludes me, announced that he was going to scientifically analyze the bible. Instead, and without actually analyzing it, he simply declared the bible to be scientific, and that's when the literal interpretation of the bible and the need to defend it as so began