Jordan Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 *sigh* Oh god, not this all over again. So glad I was in Bristol yesterday and missed out on the majority of it. Eight pages or so of the thread are still here for your enjoyment. I'm stil l curious (and inebriate d, but that's a different topic) if E.E. (may I call you "Eazy E?" ) has any comments about my points because I'm more than willing to discuss this topic in a sporting manner. I guess we Yanks have more practise in this debate than you (IMO, lucky you...). For the record, I'm atheist with plenty of devout Catholic relatives and we disagree often, but in a civil manner. Even renowned scientists like Stephen Jay Gould argued that science and religion are not mutually exclusive authorities.
l444ry Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 I'm not much of an expert in Science, but I'm not aware of any scientific law or demonstrable process that can account for non-living objects coming to life. The non-living soil in your garden didn't turn into living trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other living trees and flowers. Life invariably comes from something that is already alive. Imagine all life on earth disappeared. There are no trees, plants or animals. All we have is rocks, dust, and lifeless matter. So how does the earth get populated with living things? That's the atheist evolutionist's unanswerable dilemma, and shows the massive faith they have to hold in preposterous answers.
Webbo Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 People have been believing in some form of creationism for 4,000 years before Darwin was ever born. The world still turned on it's axis, living standards gradually improved and society progressed. If people still choose to believe in creationism so what?
Zingari Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 People have been believing in some form of creationism for 4,000 years before Darwin was ever born. The world still turned on it's axis, living standards gradually improved and society progressed.If people still choose to believe in creationism so what? belief in anything is no problem , the problem starts when believers try to dictate laws and behaviour , determined by their beliefs . (via a hotline to their god) it happens all the time in every religion , but no evolutionist ( that i'm aware of ) ever made laws for our behaviour based on the theory . how many people ( gays, women, masturbators etc ) have been stoned because of some "holy" law that religion has imposed ? yes, believe by all means , but if your holy men tell the rest of us what god wants us to do or how to behave , try to telling him/ her to shut up !! you 'll then probably see who is intransigent
Flynny Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 NOWHERE will you find a creature in between stages of evolution. That's why it's just a theory. That's an expectation placed on the fossil record by creationists, not biologists. What would a creature 'in between' stages of evolution look like? There's no such thing. There's a before and after, once something mutated is born it doesn't gradually morph. That and the fossil record is like trying to piece together a football match by taking pictures of the pitch every minute.
Thracian Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 What a vast subject. Evolution is ongoing as is quite obvioius. It is of the physical. But I believe that God exists too - within the mind and is apparent depending on our level of development - and is capable of creation in Himself or Itself. Already at the modest levels our minds have managed thus far we have shown ourselves capable of cloning and of starting to understand, for instance, the mysteries of nano technology. I believe there are aspects of mental capability that we yet to develop just as their are rules of science and even dimensions that we have yet to understand. There may be more masterful minds out there but I don't imagine there is a conceptual mastermind for all. Our own minds and our inner spirit seems to demand that we find some way to live with what we cannot understand and therefore to try to set down norms of acceptable behaviour for the time - hence the commandments etc. People have taken advantage of these needs to gain power over others but though concepts of acceptable behaviour - such as not killing, not stealing and perhaps even praying to a so-called higher authority - are understandable and have seemed to be part of man's psyche since time immemorial, they are a shield and evolutionary life is greatly about survival and pro-creation. The intriquing part, to me, is how important the achievements of individual lives matter in the fullness of time towards human development. Is the idea of doing something, inventing something, caring for someone, creating something just a means of providing ongoing motivation for humanity? Something that gives us something constructive to do. Or is there a level of intelligence to be achieved over millions of years that will lead our species towards some sort of infinite wisdom and, if so, why? There are more questions than answers. I am no sort of intellectual and the above are just thoughts really. But I do believe in the inner self. I believe the inner self can set standards for one's life - though others will always seek to impose their own standards. I believe the inner self is capable of healing and, indeed, of such things as telepathic communication if only we could develop the knowhow. God is a strange and nebulous concept. But one that seems to be within us rather than without.
l444ry Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 belief in anything is no problem , the problem starts when believers try to dictate laws and behaviour , determined by their beliefs . (via a hotline to their god)it happens all the time in every religion , but no evolutionist ( that i'm aware of ) ever made laws for our behaviour based on the theory . how many people ( gays, women, masturbators etc ) have been stoned because of some "holy" law that religion has imposed ? yes, believe by all means , but if your holy men tell the rest of us what god wants us to do or how to behave , try to telling him/ her to shut up !! you 'll then probably see who is intransigent Although Darwin would be horrified, Hitler made numerous references to his theory in Mein Kampf about survival of the fittest, citing "lower human types". It could fairly be argued that Nazism was the ultimate attempt to impose behaviour and laws upon humanity.
Webbo Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 belief in anything is no problem , the problem starts when believers try to dictate laws and behaviour , determined by their beliefs . (via a hotline to their god)it happens all the time in every religion , but no evolutionist ( that i'm aware of ) ever made laws for our behaviour based on the theory . how many people ( gays, women, masturbators etc ) have been stoned because of some "holy" law that religion has imposed ? yes, believe by all means , but if your holy men tell the rest of us what god wants us to do or how to behave , try to telling him/ her to shut up !! you 'll then probably see who is intransigent The rules and laws in society have evolved over the centuries by trial and error and by sticking with what works. No society as far as I'm aware believes that men should be free to do as they please, shag around and abandon their wives and children when it suits. This is because societies know from experience that this always ends in misery for someone. Religious rules are just a reflection of this.
Zingari Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 Although Darwin would be horrified, Hitler made numerous references to him in Mein Kampf about survival of the fittest, citing "lower human types". It could fairly be argued that Nazism was the ultimate attempt to impose behaviour and laws upon humanity. Hitler' s ( and the nazi's ) pathological hatred of the jews probably came from his catholic school upbringing that taught about "the tribe" as jesus murderers
Daggers Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 *sigh* Oh god, not this all over again. So glad I was in Bristol yesterday and missed out on the majority of it. And, amazingly, the very same inane and inept arguments. I'm opting for shooting zombies instead.
Zingari Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 The rules and laws in society have evolved over the centuries by trial and error and by sticking with what works. No society as far as I'm aware believes that men should be free to do as they please, shag around and abandon their wives and children when it suits. This is because societies know from experience that this always ends in misery for someone. Religious rules are just a reflection of this. you are indeed correct , no society believes in total freedom , but i just prefer it if the rules and laws are made by rational discussion rather than by holy men with supposed hot lines to gods . would we really have come up with such stupid laws as are still practiced in some states without silly beliefs in almighty spirits ? well .......yes thinking about it , yes possibly we would
Webbo Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 Hitler' s ( and the nazi's ) pathological hatred of the jews probably came from his catholic school upbringing that taught about "the tribe" as jesus murderers I was reading a book on the First World War in the week. One of the reasons given for the increase in tension in Europe leading up to the war was the change in political thought brought on by Darwinism. Especially the social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase 'survival of the fittest'. The industrialised countries began to believe in a racial superiority as opposed to the teachings of the Bible that we're all created in gods image, therefore equal.
lcfc81 Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 Not read the whole thread but an interesting point raised on Shameless the other night was Is it not Hypocrytical that most Ibrahamic Religions have changed there stance from Literalist theories of evolution to non-literalist theories after the postivist period of enlightenment (when theories such as Darwins gained promenence). I thought it was a very intellectual concept and commentary for such a programme and was very impressed!
Zingari Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 I was reading a book on the First World War in the week. One of the reasons given for the increase in tension in Europe leading up to the war was the change in political thought brought on by Darwinism. Especially the social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer who coined the phrase 'survival of the fittest'. The industrialised countries began to believe in a racial superiority as opposed to the teachings of the Bible that we're all created in gods image, therefore equal. there we have it, just as i've always suspected . all sorts of thinking is dangerous in the new world order , people like me will be in charge
BlabyFox Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 You should have set up a poll. I started a similar thread abut 6 months ago i think.
BlabyFox Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 Religion is as ridiculous as the idea of the tooth fairy or santa clause.
Thracian Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 Religion is as ridiculous as the idea of the tooth fairy or santa clause. You should have written that centuries back. It would have saved so much wasted parchment!
BoneDog Posted 22 February 2009 Posted 22 February 2009 Eight pages or so of the thread are still here for your enjoyment. I'm stil l curious (and inebriate d, but that's a different topic) if E.E. (may I call you "Eazy E?" ) has any comments about my points because I'm more than willing to discuss this topic in a sporting manner. I guess we Yanks have more practise in this debate than you (IMO, lucky you...). For the record, I'm atheist with plenty of devout Catholic relatives and we disagree often, but in a civil manner. Even renowned scientists like Stephen Jay Gould argued that science and religion are not mutually exclusive authorities. Yes you can call me Eazy-E if you want, but can I ask why? I have an idea but I aint gonna say. Science and religion are for certain NOT exclusive authorities. Looking at the way the Bible reads now though (after all the changes) I can understand peoples humour towards it.
Zingari Posted 23 February 2009 Posted 23 February 2009 That's all very well , but will you be thanking God or Mr. Dolmio ?
Houdini Logic Posted 23 February 2009 Posted 23 February 2009 Debating with creationists is like playing bridge with monkeys. They think they've won if they eat the cards.
stez Posted 23 February 2009 Posted 23 February 2009 once again christianity: a history, on ch4 last night was very interesting and covered this subject, and more, such as the inquisitions, where scientists were burnt at the stake for revealing the evidence they found supporting their theories. one churchman summed it up quite nicely; 'the church is full of humans who can't admit when they're wrong' (or words to that effect) he also had several draws full of 4 billion year old rocks. and said the bible should never be taken literally.
Edmund Posted 23 February 2009 Posted 23 February 2009 @ el empty 10/10 for effort though. People may disagree with you but at least you stand up for your beliefs.
BoneDog Posted 24 February 2009 Posted 24 February 2009 @ el empty 10/10 for effort though. People may disagree with you but at least you stand up for your beliefs. Cheers I agree with alot of what people say about religion. Inquisition, terrorists etc. But these things have nothing to do with believing in a force that is powering the universe. All these bad things that go on are just caused by leaders who are hungry for more power. They just pretend to be 'religious' and thus give religion a bad name.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.