How does Evolution not disprove religion?

Discussion in 'Religion, Beliefs and Spirituality' started by mrblonde77, May 23, 2007.

  1. Ah yes, so our soul is the collective neural impulses and biological structure of our brain? Okay I can get on board with that.

    But then that means that our souls are anything but eternal and rather destructible
     
  2. Just to show how absurd it is for some religious to deny the fact of evolution, here's an analogy, only the subject matter is chemistry...

    :D

    [​IMG]
     
  3. ^^^^

    Hahaha and they haven't even started the unit on alchemy!

    [​IMG]
     
  4. I believe I would cease to exist because I don't believe in the idea of a soul. But basically you're saying when 2 people have sex, some magic happens, and POOF new soul!? I don't understand your definition, or really your whole post for that matter.
     
  5. i read all the posts but i still wanna answer the question, how does evolution not disprove religion?

    (first, thanks for phrasing the question that way because it becomes the question of, if everything science says is true is true, what does that do to all the ages of "truth" that came before? in other words, is science truly the last word in human thought and understanding? at least that what i thought you meant)


    anyway my answer is that evolution (or any scientific conclusion, theory, etc) cannot "disprove" religion because science is posited in natural phenonmenon and has to be measured somehow through quantifiable units of something and that's like saying "eating potato chips increases my joy" and how are you gonna measure my joy? weigh it? count how many times i smile while ingesting said golden, salty chips? where is the beginning and ending of "my joy" or whatever? what about when i remember those chips when i'm an old lady with no teeth and am glad i had them? and that is just potato chips.

    so yeah science can "prove" things using facts that can be gathered from natural phenomenon, but most of human culture just doesn't fit in that category given that we have an inner life that can only be partly discerned through the way we interact with the natural world including but not limited to our bodies.

    systems of religion are more concerned with light/dark, good/bad and how is science gonna measure that? so really science, by definition, is not in the business of dis-proving things...

    another interesting question: how would you spell the sound of hitting a joint?
    tphph.... or tuuuuuuuuuuuu or.... so many questions....
     
  6. No i never said they where neural impulses you did. Without a soul we would not have a consciousness. What you see all around you the computer everything thats projecting to your soul. It seems like most the people in this thread are closed minded athiests so i will stop here.
     

  7. As I said, personal truth is meaningless except in the confines of one's own head. If we all believed the same thing we would not necessarily have all knowledge. I am not sure how you arrived at such a conclusion.


    I get what you are saying. You're saying that us having a soul enables us to be conscious. A soul is not who we are, as in our thoughts, feelings, knowledge, beliefs, it is instead something that enables us to have these things. Is that what you are saying?

    And just for the record, I am not a close minded atheist! I am a close minded agnostic. :p Wait! Open minded, yes... That is right.
     
  8. I'm not closed minded, I just haven't seen a valid explanation and until someone produces one, I will remain a nonbeliever. Why believe when there is no explanation or proof?!? Also I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that without a soul we wouldn't have consciousness...it sounds like a random idea that popped into your head. Feel free to share your reasoning.
     
  9. Yes, I know, I'm trying to understand your post.

    Uh-huh, so what is the soul? You still haven't clarified.

    Huh? Maybe rephrase that.

    So you'd rather make an ambiguous claim, then leave because people are asking you to explain yourself?

    Not to mention the name-calling. I went out of my way not to tell you what I think of you, I deserve the same respect
     
  10. Yes liquidtruth you are correct that was the point i was trying to get across.


    Name calling, where ? I never refered that to you directly, so quit assuming.
     

  11. Based upon that criteria, would you then agree that animals (maybe even plants) have souls as well?
     
  12. Animals yes. Plants probabley not.

    Liquidtruth have you checked out the soul theory ? Now i know its just a theory, but so is evolution.

    http://science.krishna.org/Articles/2004/05/006.html
     
  13. Cool, there is nothing I hate more then people claiming humans are the only beings with souls. Especially considering their arguments for that conclusion are rather weak.. Of course, proving a soul is not an easy task. :)

    No I have not, though I am reading the link now. I am also drinking, so I may not finish tonight. ;)

    Yes, evolution is just a theory. A theory with a mountain of evidence to back it up though. :)
     
  14. I'm so tired of various believers refer to evolution as "just a theory". It just reeks of outright ignorance. Not only of evolution, but also of science and scientific method in general.

    So once more (From Wikipedia):

    In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

    In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.

    Or in plain words, a scientific theory fits current data and evidence, have full-filled many predictions and is for all intents and purposes fact until proven inaccurate.

    ---

    The "Soul theory" (?!) that was linked to is not such a theory. First of all it is full of pseudoscientific and more importantly absurd (read: laughably false) drivel like this:

    "There exists, within this material universe, three types of energy: gross material, subtle material and spiritual. The gross material energy consists of earth, water, fire, air and ether (*cough*, where did I just see this "periodic table" *cough*...). The subtle material energy consists of mind, intelligence and false-ego. The spiritual energy consists of the soul and the supersoul"

    And full of logical errors, most specifically it is self referencing thus argumenting in circles:

    "The soul: A spiritual particle". OK, what is spiritual particles then? Oh, wait, don't tell me, the soul?

    And the hallmark of any psuodoscientific "theory", wild claims and assumptions made without evidence:

    "The soul is eternal, it has no birth and it never dies."

    But the biggest warning sign is really that it is not from a reputable scientific source, but from a woo-woo belief source. In this case a Hare Krishna religious site. And as we all know, the Hare Krishna is entirely level-headed...
     
  15. I did not even get to any of the quotes you mentioned, though when I did see that is was a Hare Krishna site, I raised my eyebrows and decided it would be better to attempt to read it after I slept and sobered up. Perhaps I shall not bother, based upon the quotes you have provided.

    EDIT:

    I did just come upon this quote...

    Really? Stars cannot die? Or do stars have souls? Matter cannot vanish? Does it not have a half life? (Does it? :p)

    Also, according to this a plant must have a soul or else it would never die. In fact, everything would seem to have a soul, even a rock or a speck of dust.
     
  16. evolution doesnt disprove religion whatsoever. religion doesnt disprove evolution, as well. i believe science and religion work together.

    god created what we experience and has allowed it to evolve into what it is and will become, in some ways.
     
  17. Are you really? Well guess what, get used to it. Evolution cant be proven therefore it stays a theory.

    Also evolution has a mountain of knoweldge only if you want it to.

    Creationism also has a mountain of knoweldge but people like to be logical and accept evolution because they feel there is no higher power other than humanity.
     
  18. Hehe... Go Zylark, go!
     
  19. By that i meant evolution only has truths to the people who accept it.

    But to others evolution is complete nonsense.
     
  20. anyone here played Final Fantasy 7? if so thats gotta be the most rational albeit fantastic concept for why and how life exsists

    plants have souls insects everything has some pattern of memory which makes up personality/will to live/ect

    stands to reason it all goes right back to the source to be reused if it as most people assume is more than just food going in energy coming out

    can't very well have a never ending battery if it's cycle isn't local lol
     

Share This Page