I find it incredibly silly to hear theists denounce evolution and become offended that it violates the idea of a god. IF there is an intelligent creator, would it not also make sense to 'create' a system that would allow for your creations to evolve and change over time, to better themselves and stand the test of time without needing manual updates?? It seems naive to assume that we were created 'perfect', and then while the planet changes over time (which is pretty undeniable) we were intended to remain exactly as we originally were? I would venture to say that things such as people being born without wisdom teeth, appendixes, having shorter jaws, growing taller and a decent multitude of things that are medically "proven" are enough to justify that there is a pretty strong possibility that it's not some made up theory to counteract religion. I'm personally not a theist (if you somehow missed that) but I have to say it makes the larger subset of theists look childish and ignorant by trying to shut their eyes and blindly refute something with rational basis because "things are too perfect, they must have had a creator". If something exists, and thus HAS to have a creator, then who created the creator? A paradox within itself, any creator of a creator must also have a creator OR you have to assume that the initial creation is outside the realm that we can comprehend (which hardly means that there was 'intelligent design' by any standard).
I get what you try to say, but you are being a bit to general. What do you mean by religion for example? Religions are not equal. Even within religions there are schisms that detract significantly on this and that interpretation of whatever. But the basic premise is, evolution is based upon fact, religion is based upon conjecture. Where religion can accept fact, that is great. Where religion can not accept fact, you enter the realm of delusion and willfull ignorance. Not so great. Some religions and sects within a given religion are very dogmatic, and not very likely to accept fact. Others more likely to adapt doctrine to align with best current knowledge. You could say evolution and religion are compatible, but only insofar that the religion is not based upon some literal interpretation of whatever text they follow. And in either case, evolution do make any deity quite unessesary in the path to us. To humans. Which kind of put a bit of a wrench into the religious notion, that we are gods own little creatures.
By religion, the main reference would be Christianity, the Catholic church being a great example. But there are sects of several religions, and just people in general who consider themselves theists who blatently post ignorant things about "how could we have possibly come from scaley reptiles?!" without any real understanding of evolutionary theory. My main premise is just that evolution can exist side by side with religion. I understand that I can't convert many believers into non-believers, and truthfully I could care less what someone believes if it makes them happy. However I do have a problem when a large group of people shit all over accepted and verifiable science because they feel it contradicts the teachings of their faith based system. At the very least, I hope someone on the far side of the fence might not look so blindly in the evolution direction in fear that it negates their sense of a god. Scientific progress is hindered when the masses refuse to look at the research and dismissively view theories they don't actually understand.
if their were no religion in this world. it would be a much better place. the only thing that keeps people apart is religion, and is also what creates wars. fucking stupid religion. religion is truly something humans should just forget, its keeping us all from advancing. no matter what i say though it cant stop religion because we are now so dependant on it.
I'm under the belief that religion was originally very effective at mass population control. To people who don't fear the laws of their area, a fear of an all-knowing, all-powerful being, and the consequence of eternal damnation is an extremely good reason to not rob, murder, rape etc. On the other hand, a common argument I hear is that "atheists are immoral". With that concept, a lot of people think "you need religion to have morals", which most atheists I know would find insulting. But nonetheless, I agree that religion does come with its set of evils and has been a cause for holding back progress (the dark ages anyone?) but there are some people who really "need" it in their lives to help steer them down a better path.
I agree with this. i mean, evolution can explain how our bodies came to be but our consciousness is still up for debate as to what caused it, where it came from and where it goes. i think that saying anything that's actually a belief as a certainty is a little silly because a belief doesn't have proof by merit of it being a belief. though, i once read somewhere in a novel where "god" was having a discussion with mortals that the "seven" days that we know the creation story is misguided because for us mortals, a "Day" is 24 hours... but for a god, a "Day" could be anywhere from 24 hours all the way to 24 thousand years or even 24 million years. so, saying that everyone and everything on earth was created in 7 days is misleading because it lacks the perspective of an omnipotent being. if you go through all the "days" in the bible and change the perspective of the timeframe, the progression still somewhat holds... in the beginning there was void... okay... then there was light (the big bang) then the sun and the sky (the matter that would create the sun and our earth) then the plants and animals (evolution of life to what it is now) then mankind... you can even go further and suggest that the story of the garden of eden isn't a literal story but a metaphor for our gradual gaining of intelligence and awareness of our own mortality... leading to our expulsion from the garden of eden (representational of the paradise of living in a land where we are not for want of anything because our basic needs are met... food, water, sex.) it could even be somewhat literal in a sense seeing as it could represent when the life forms that would become modern homo-sapiens is traced to have evolved initially in a jungle-like setting and then we then set out into the grasslands and plains of africa, that could be the "wandering the desert" (the desert bit i think is more because at the time of it's writing, the sahara was a desert but geologically speaking, it used to be verdant grasslands and lush... but that was thousands of years before the bible was written.) i could ramble for a lot longer but i'm going to cut it short here.
Careful, belief can still be based on something with merit. The term 'day' means solar cycle. It is a direct reference to 24 hours. Sure, we can change the definition of things to suit our arguments, but it's somewhat disingenuous... Especially when the bible, for example, is MEANT to be taken word for word, literally, as the perfect word of god. If the story of the garden of Eden is a metaphor, then is Leviticus where it explains which members of your family you can have sex with, is that a metaphor too? Or what about where it says who you can own as slaves? Not so sure I see the metaphor there... The fact that anyone who reads this today is using a computer on Sunday means they should be killed. Is anyone going to volunteer to submit to the true word of god? lol Let's be honest. The bible was meant to be taken as 100% truth, people just don't do that anymore because they're not complete idiots (not to mention like 1/2 of the 'acts of god' that were done in the bible are illegal now). How could we possibly pick out which parts of the bible are just stories, and which are the literal words of god? Who could possibly know that?
Neither religion, nor evolution can properly respond to the problem of first cause, and neither is falsifiable. The only thing evolutionary theory can state with authority is that if the wind blows harder for years, birds get stronger wings, or statenents like that. So in reality, it doesn't speak to any religious questions. Darwin called his book "the origin of species", be he didn't mean like, "where did these things originate". He meant, "when did these distinctions between species amongst all these living things originate". So many people in the world have no idea what they're talking about. It's just sad. Even the "scientific" minded kids on here still reason like the religious kids, it's just sadder because they can't realize, or admit they're doing it. And yeah, they're not mutually exclusive. Unless you start trying to say that Darwin claimed there was no god, which I don't think he did. (I'm sure someone will pull a vague quote out of context and suggest that he suggested that he might sometimes suggest that ther could be a possiblity of no god, but then we'd be deviating from science, so that statement would have no authority. Some people like to think, "god created shit, and then it all evolved a la Darwin". If it makes them happy to think that, then they should. It's not like anyone can prove otherwise, and pointing to probabilities is the same fallacious move no matter which side makes it.
Beef.....knocking the bible and defeating it in a debate isn't the same as disproving religion, or proving that there's no god. Merit, is an evaluative notion. What about when people say, "back in the day"? Does that indicate a 24 hour period? I think you're just making up weak arguments and then defeating them so that it'll appear your arguments are strong. You are the first person in my life who I've ever heard insist that the bible is to be taken literally at every single word. Seriously I"m in my mid 30's I've never heard anyone, anywhere say that.
true... but a belief by the very nature of it's accepted english definition means it is not backed up by factual evidence. but the bible is not the literal perfect word of god... if it WERE perfect, there would be no need for translations or modifications of it's texts as evidenced by the many different versions and revisions. by merit of the fact that there are different versions means that mankind felt that it was NOT the perfect words of god and changed it accordingly... so, when you say that the bible is the perfect word of god, you're actually calling the scribes that wrote in the changes as well as the monarchs that told the church to change it as being perfect and as being gods... which is blasphemous and heretical (translation: really, really big sins.) given that there's a lot in the bible that's meant as a form of societal control, you have to actually use your brain to understand it's words... when you accept something blindly, that's not godly, that's just dumb (because it says that the person doesn't have the capacity to reason or use their higher thought-processes. ergo, mentally deficient.) you're getting away from the point i was trying to make and this sounds more like you're trying to start an argument. keep reaching, you'll get that brass ring one day. only the fundamentalists are of that mind and they constitute a very, very small percentage of christians and others that follow the abrahamic god. even judaism understands that the bible/torah isn't a literal transliteration of god's intent, that's why they have the talmud. that's where your brain comes in... you would do well to use it.
There you go. Mass population control. I am not alone on this rock after all. Yes its all part of the dream my friends. The dream of the planet and the bullshyt they feed you. Check out The Fifth Agreement. Also on morals. I have been saying that forever. I am not an atheist nor do I believe in the Christian god. But without an end to the means then justice loss. The immoral wins at the end and there is no justice for the 8 year old girl raped by a monster. Hmmm. One must wonder.
Agreed. It's not possible to prove something doesn't exist. Agreed, but merit in different fields means different things. Merit of the belief your gf won't cheat on you is different than scientific merit that 'quantum locking' takes place. Obviously not. "Back in the day" is a colloquial term, meaning many days ago. Who is making weak arguments now? I'm not insisting on anything. I'm merely trying to figure out if, and what, anything in the bible should be taken seriously. Or if it's all just stories... If it's just stories, why do lots of Catholics still not use protection, and why are gays still persecuted by Christians? Why is it ok to say "Homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so" but then ignore the other rules that aren't as convenient to follow?
Actually, that's not the definition of belief. the definition of belief is merely "holding something true". It needn't specify whether or not evidence is required. The bible was modified by way of council for political reasons, kings didn't like the rules, etc... So, are the original separate scrolls/books of the bible accurate? When you accept something blindly, it's called FAITH. I'm not attempting to start an argument for the sake of an argument, but if one ensues due to differing opinions I will not object. So, the bible isn't the word of god, then why treat it as anything remotely holy? Easy there, Mr. Ad Hominem attack... it's not so easy to distinguish fairy tale from fact, or we wouldn't have bigots condemning homosexuals, killing abortion Dr.'s, and pope's telling AIDS-ridden Africans NOT to use condoms....
Dude I think you're taking the most radical things, that the smallest factions of religious people do, and then applying those behaviors to an entire group of people that aren't even like that. You do know that's what you're doing right? Quantum Locking? Dude no new bit of jargon is going to change the nature of unccertainty. And if you think that quantifying something means that it no longer an evaluative thing, then you're confused about whether or not, and if so how an opinion can be factualized. Why are you so angry at religion? Were you forced against your will to go into a church? Were you abused by a clergy member? Personally, I've never really been religious. So when I see these kinds of things, it never makes sense to me that the atheist is always so passionate, and the religious people really don't give a shit. It's backward man. It's like atheists are out there trying to push thier beliefs on others, and insulting those who disagree with them, and making absurd claims in the name of science, claims which couldn't possibly be scientifically proven. It just confuses the shit out of me. Every day, 100 threads about why there's no god and religion is wrong, going on and on about how religious people do this or that.....and 0 threads with religious people actually doing any of that stuff. I've literally been evangelized by atheists, as opposed to christians like 5:1. I guess the athiests just have a stonger faith and are more motivated to get out there and convert. Doesn't make a bit of fucking sense.
sorry, but i like to call things as i see them. don't like it? turn off the internet and try going outside at some point. you're arguments are filled with half-facts which you're taking to be true and exaggerating them to almost comical proportions. so, that's why i do believe that you're not using your brain to it's fullest potential.
Moderates facilitate the extremists. You're damn right I'm angry at (some) religion! It's destructive and indoctrinates children into believing grown up fairy-tales. I actually care about whether or not my beliefs are true, and more than that I care whether the laws I follow are based on reason, or bullshit dogma. Atheist are often passionate about truth, it's how they became atheists. You mean their 'lack of belief'? Atheism doesn't entail any belief structure at all. Anything that an atheist says on top of "I do not hold a belief in god or gods" is their personal belief outside of atheism, and should be treated as such. Evangelized? Considering the term Evangelize is specific to the religion of Christianity, I'm going to have to call you out on that one. Lacking a belief in god doesn't require any more faith than lacking a belief in magical, cosmic, unicorns. It does if you care about holding true beliefs, or if you care if the people around you are wilfully ignorant.
You can insult me all you wish (after all, I'm a libertarian), and I will continue to point out your fallacies, and dribble....
What makes me really chuckle is how it's not ok for the 10-20% of Atheists to stand up for what they believe in, but as long as you believe in a magical, invisible, man in the sky your inane beliefs are protected. Don't believe, and try to explain why you don't, and you're suddenly attacking religious peoples freedoms...